Appeal No. 2000-1371
Application No. 08/867,810
Additionally, the examiner does not address the specific process limitations
which result in specific dimensional limitations on the article of manufacture. Nor has
the examiner provided a line of reasoning why the teachings of Smith or Hirukawa
would have suggested these specific limitations on the round portion and the focal
depth. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to dependent claims 4, 5, 13, and 14, and we have not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 6-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 4, 5, 10,
11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007