Ex parte MAHALEK et al. - Page 7




                     Appeal No. 1999-1661                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/801,862                                                                                                                                        

                     ‘distance sensor.”  Since the Examiner’s prima facie case of                                                                                                      
                     obviousness has not been rebutted by any persuasive arguments                                                                                                     
                     from Appellants, the 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection of independent                                                                                                     
                     claim 1 is sustained.                                                                                                                                             
                                Turning to a consideration of dependent claim 5, the                                                                                                                                                     
                     representative claim for Appellants’ grouping of claims 5 and                                                                                                     
                     6, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection of this                                                                                                    
                     claim as well.  We agree with the Examiner that the                                                                                                               
                     indentations 24 which serve as the pivot points for the                                                                                                           
                     movement of wall 22 meet the claimed “supporting wedge”                                                                                                           
                     language of claim 5.  Appellants’ argument that a “wedge”                                                                                                         
                     requires a positive structure rather than a “void” such as the                                                                                                    
                     indentations of Kramer are unpersuasive and have no support on                                                                                                    
                     the record.  Since all of the limitations of the claim are                                                                                                        
                     suggested by Kramer, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection                                                                                                     
                     of claim 5, and claim 6 which falls with claim 5, is                                                                                                              
                     sustained.3                                                                                                                                                       
                                In conclusion, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.                                                                                              


                                3 We have not considered Appellants’ separate argument for                                                                                             
                     patentability of claim 6 in the Reply Brief.  Appellants are                                                                                                      
                     bound by the original grouping of claims 5 and 6 in the Brief                                                                                                     
                     which the Examiner relied upon in the Answer.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                          7                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007