Appeal Number: 2006-3046
Application Number: 10/130,596
REJECTION
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yamaguchi and Aoike.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed Jan. 11, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed Oct. 11, 2005) and reply brief (filed Mar.
10, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 through 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yamaguchi and Aoike.
The examiner applies Yamaguchi for the subject matter regarding attaching a
board to an engine and Aoike for the subject matter of float wiring on such a board
that is attached to an engine.
The appellants argue primarily that Yamaguchi contains no teaching of where
such a board would be mounted on an engine. In particular, the appellants argue
Yamaguchi only discloses a sectional view of an engine. Yamaguchi
fails to provide any guidance with regard to placing an electronic
circuit relative to an engine because Yamaguchi only schematically
illustrates an engine. Yamaguchi discloses an engine 11 and an output
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013