Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369
Parellada reference discloses that ultrasonic energy is suitable for this
purpose. (note col. 4).
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
Now we turn to the obviousness rejections.
The rejections under § 103
The Appellant primarily argues dependent claims 12-25 as a group.
Appellant, Brief page 8, asserts that the claims are allowable for the reasons
presented in the discussion of claim 11. Appellant further identifies some of
the characteristics of the dependent claims and concludes that this subject
matter is not anticipated or rendered obvious. Appellant's arguments are not
persuasive for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. The Examiner has
cited several additional prior art references which have been indicated as
teaching or suggesting the claimed subject matter.
Appellant has argued that the Obeda, Frantz, and MacLaughlin
references are not properly combinable with Parellada because these
references are not analogous to Parellada (Br. 9-10).
The Examiner has cited each of these references for various aspects of
Parellada such as the shape of the sonotrode and/or counterhold elements of
the shaping tool (Obeda and MacLaughlin) and the Frantz reference for
describing the amplitude suitable for welding conditions. (See Answer, 4-5).
Thus, we determine that the cited references are properly combinable with
Parellada because the references are pertinent to the various aspects of
Parellada and the claimed invention
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in the Answer,
it is our determination that the Examiner has established a prima facie case
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007