Appeal No. 2003-0429
Application 09/282,862
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8-11
based on the teachings of Bolle and Rambaldi. With respect to
independent claims 1, 6 and 8, the examiner finds that Bolle
teaches the claimed invention except that Bolle does not teach a
cover for protecting the sensor from environmental forces when
the sensor is not in use. The examiner cites Rambaldi as
teaching such a sensor. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to combine the teachings of Bolle and
Rambaldi [answer, pages 5-6].
With respect to claim 1, appellants argue that there is
no motivation to combine Bolle with Rambaldi. Specifically,
appellants argue that the examiner has not shown why Bolle should
be modified based on either the nature of the problem to be
solved, the teachings of the prior art, or the knowledge of
persons of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants insist that
there is no suggestion within the applied prior art to make the
combination proposed by the examiner. Appellants note that the
sensors of Bolle, as applied by the examiner, do not meet the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007