Appeal No. 2001-0646
Application No. 09/227,935
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051-52, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
Following the guidelines above, the Examiner sets forth in
detail the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) at pages 4 and 5 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appellants
argue (Brief, page 6) that “the Examiner has not established that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by a
reading of Kuroda to consider this reference in the context of
the structure of prior art Fig. 15 nor, even if so considered,
would have been motivated to modify the prior art Fig. 15
embodiment to result in the specifically claimed invention.”
In response, the Examiner discusses in detail (Answer, pages
6 and 7) why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to modify Fig. 15 of Appellants’ disclosure (prior
art) with the teachings of Kuroda. The Examiner makes a
reference to Appellants’ discussion of the admitted prior art at
page 3, line 27 through page 4, line 1 of the specification to
show that there was recognition of the problem of the connection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007