Appeal No. 2001-1195
Application No. 09/154,485
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Appellant provides separate arguments for four groups of claims comprising: 1 &
6; 3 & 8; 4 & 9; and 5 & 10. We make our determinations based on our selection of
claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 as representative of the claimed subject matter. Dependent claims
2 and 7, not separately argued, stand or fall with consideration of representative claim
1. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
With respect to claim 1, appellant argues that the rejection is erroneous because
control mounting panel 64 of Coates is believed to be a structure with the sole function
of mechanically holding the control knobs 28a, 30a, 32a, 28b, 30b, and 32b in their
mounting positions. (Brief at 9.) Appellant admits (id. at 10) that Coates may suggest a
circuit board mounted inside the outer cabinet 12. Ohashi, however, is deemed to only
teach a space-saving technique of mounting control instruments on a printed circuit
board. Ohashi thus is viewed as not providing any motivation on how identical printed
circuit boards may be used for different control panels. (Id.)
We disagree that Ohashi “only” teaches a space-saving technique of mounting
control instruments on a printed circuit board. That may be the principal reason for
Ohashi’s improvement over the prior art as depicted in Figure 10 of the reference.
Ohashi col. 1, ll. 31-45. The reference also lists, however, eight advantages in the
inventive construction that are not limited to a “space-saving technique” or a reduction
in height of a switch. Col. 4, ll. 7-54. We agree with the examiner that Ohashi would
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007