Appeal No. 2000-1961
Application 08/840,200
mechanism in order to detect the characteristics of the
mechanism" (FR10; FR12; FR13-14).
Appellants argue that the references do not show a
"self-contained" system comprising a housing the system in a
unitary assembly (Br13).
Again, the examiner must do more than just make up reasons
for the obviousness conclusion even on simple issues such as
providing a unitary assembly in a housing. The examiner has
failed to provide a reference showing "a housing for assembling
said system in a unitary assembly in operative communication with
said mechanism" and, thus, has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. The rejection of
claims 1, 5-7, and 11 is reversed.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15: Hill in view of Yumoto
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, and 13
Yumoto shows a detecting section 1 attached to an arithmetic
section 50 by a cable 51 and, so, it does not cure the
deficiencies of Hill with respect to "a housing for assembling
said system in a unitary assembly in operative communication with
said mechanism." Nor does the examiner rely on Yumoto for this
teaching. The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, and
13 is reversed.
- 20 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007