Appeal No. 2000-0398
Application 08/903,406
to rely upon it for the substance of the actual features recited
in the claims rejected.
In light of these considerations with respect to Bottelson, we
also reverse the rejection of independent claim 6 and its respective
dependent claims. From our perspective, it appears to be mere
conjecture as to the reasoning the examiner would have utilized, but
did not state in the rejection, as to his reliance upon Bottelson in
view of Morris. Still, the examiner takes the view that Morris and
Bottelson show everything except for the parametric access slot.
However, the examiner further relies upon Morgan, but fails to
discuss this reference at all in the reasoning set forth in this
rejection at the bottom of page 4 of the answer. It is therefore
readily apparent that there is no prima facie case of obviousness
that the examiner has established as to independent claim 6 and its
respective dependent claims.
We observe in passing that the feature allegedly not taught in
the combination of Morris and Bottelson is taught in Bottelson to
the extent there appears to be a recess slot around the inside
perimeter of the central opening (CO) in the embodiments shown in
Figures 2-4. Yet it is not apparent to us from the examiner’s
reasoning nor from our own understanding of this reference why
the artisan would have found it obvious to have utilized such a
parametric access slot as claimed in independent claim 6, and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007