Ex Parte Schreiber et al - Page 3



            Appeal 2007-3126                                                                               
            Application 10/359,275                                                                         

                         a filling compound within the tube and encasing the sensor                        
                  wherein the filling compound is made from a material different from                      
                  the radially-wound, epoxy glass material of the tube.                                    
            C.  The references and rejection                                                               
                  The references relied on by the Examiner are:                                            
            Zunick   US 4,150,270  April 17, 1979                                                          
            Abdelgawad   US 5,698,831   Dec. 16, 1977                                                      
                  Claims 1-8, 10, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for                    
            obviousness over Zunick in view of Abdelgawad.                                                 

                                              THE ISSUES1                                                  
                  1.  Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to make out a prima                   
            facie case for combining the reference teachings in a way that satisfies claims 1              
            and 21, the only claims whose language is specifically argued in the Brief?                    
                  2.  Should the rejection be reversed with respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 5,           
            and 10 on the ground that “the rejection fails to provide any indication of where the          


                                                                                                          
            1  The issues as stated herein represent the contentions of Appellants, who have the           
            burden on appeal to the Board to point out the errors in the Examiner’s position.              
            See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board,                
            an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence of prima                
            facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary              
            indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.            
            1998)).                                                                                        

                                                    3                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013