Appeal 2007-0142
Application 10/636,964
provided such an explanation. The Examiner takes the additional position
that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the length of the projection
tips (28A) to adjust the connection between the carrier (28) and the paraffin
ring. The Examiner has not provided any information as to why it would be
desirable to have projection tips of varying lengths. The Examiner has not
directed us to evidence on this record that suggests varying the lengths of the
projection tips would improve or diminish the connection between the
paraffin ring and the carrier. As such, the Examiner has not directed us to
evidentiary support on this record for modifying the projection tips of
Stahlecker to create voids in the paraffin ring that would meet the claimed
invention. See In re Lee. Thus we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
I.
The Examiner’s rejection is supported by a legally sufficient basis for
holding that the subject matter of claims 7, 8, 10-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24, and
25 would have been anticipated within the meaning of § 102 (b).
II.
On the record before us, the Examiner has not met the require burden
in this case to establish that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious over the cited prior art. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection is not
supported by a legally sufficient basis for holding that the claimed subject
matter of claims 9, 13, 19, and 23 would have been obvious within the
meaning of § 103(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013