Appeal No. 2004-2034
Application No. 09/917,096
line 28 - column 9, line 5, and column 9, lines 43-67. In our
view, the broadly claimed step of automatically controlling the
physical dimension encompasses the feedback systems disclosed by
Jeantette.
As for the separately argued claims of Group II, Group III,
Group IV, Group V and Group VI, we will not burden the record by
elaborating on the reasons set forth at pages 7-10 of the answer.
Regarding separately argued claims 12 and 13 which define the
different material as being more resistant to corrosion and
oxidation than the component itself, respectively, appellants
fail to address the thrust of the examiner’s rejection which is
based on the additional disclosure of the Parks reference.
Similarly, appellants’ separate argument for claim 19 misses the
point of the examiner’s rejection, mainly, that, based on Singer,
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to use cooling channels and thermal boundaries in the tool of
Lewis. We also agree with the examiner that the cooling channels
of Singer would function as conductive heat sinks.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no arguments
upon objective evidence of noobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness
established by the recited prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007