Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1-5. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kuijk and
Piper. Appellant has indicated that these claims stand or fall
together [brief, page 5]. Thus, we will consider the rejection
of independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this
rejection.
The examiner’s position is that Kuijk teaches all the
recitations of claim 1 except for the half a pitch offset between
consecutive rows. The examiner cites Piper as supplying this
teaching and provides an analysis as to why Kuijk would have been
modified with the teachings of Piper to arrive at the invention
of claim 1 [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues that the
applied prior art would not suggest the recitation of claim 1
relating to the mirror-symmetry of the components [brief, pages
6-7, reply brief, pages 2-3]. The examiner responds that the
mirror symmetry is met by the teachings of Kuijk. For reasons
which we will discuss in more detail below, we agree with
appellant’s position.
As a general rule in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007