Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 15
Application No. 08/222,913
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claims 13-15. Next, we address the obviousness
of claims 16 and 17.
Claims 16 and 17
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the appellants argue that the
claims “require that the cylindrical member has a curved cross
section and that the cylindrical member has a tapered cross
section, respectively. This structure is not shown or
suggested by Murai or the other references applied.” (Appeal
Br. at 18.) The examiner replies, “such a modification would
have involved a mere change in the shape of a component.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 20.) The appellants respond, “from the
result of this structure as set forth in the specification, a
‘boiler plate’ rejection that it is a design change is not
viable.” (Reply Br. at 7.)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007