Appeal No. 97-2486
Application No. 08/308,983
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Eggers in view of Stasz. The examiner is of
the opinion that it would have been obvious to mold the
ceramic
bodies of the end effectors 118, 119 of Eggers (see the
embodiment of Fig. 6C) and to trace a conductive path on these
bodies in view of the teachings of Stasz.
A detailed explanation of the rejections can be found on
pages 2 and 3 of the answer. The arguments of the appellants
and examiner in support of their respective positions can be
found on pages 6-12 of the brief, pages 1-9 of the reply brief
and pages 4-6 of the answer.
OPINION
Considering first to the rejection of claim 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers in view of
Horton, the appellants note various deficiencies of the
references individually and urge that there is no suggestion
to combine the teachings of Eggers and Horton in the manner
proposed by the examiner. In support of this position the
brief states that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007