Appeal 2006-1971
Application 10/144,224
1 claim 17, and are not convinced of any error on the part of the Examiner in
2 rejecting claim 17. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
3 sustained.
4 We turn next to the rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
5 as being unpatentable over Steuer in view of Soller, Arakaki, Aronow,
6 Misner and Simons. The Examiner's position can be found on pages 12-13
7 of the Answer. Appellants argue that Misner and Simons do not disclose or
8 suggest the claimed penetration depth, and present the same arguments
9 presented, supra. From our review of the record, and our findings, supra,
10 with respect to the teachings and suggestions of the applied prior art, we
11 agree with the Examiner that the combined suggestions of the applied prior
12 art would have motivated an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention, and
13 are not persuaded of any errors on the part of the Examiner in rejecting
14 claims 8-10. The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
15 sustained.
16
17 CONCLUSION OF LAW
18
19 On the record before us, we hold that Appellants have failed to show
20 error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, 19
21 and 20.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013