Appeal No. 2003-1173
Application No. 09/991,855
Section 103 rejections
In response to the various Section 103 rejections, appellants rely, in the main, on
the purported distinguishing factors of base claims 10 and 40 with respect to the
alleged deficiencies of Inumochi or Watanabe. We have discussed, supra, those
purported distinguishing factors and the alleged deficiencies, and find appellants’
position to be untenable. Appellants’ arguments thus do not persuade us of error in the
examiner’s conclusions with respect to prima facie obviousness.
With respect to the rejection of claim 66, appellants further allege that taper 3 in
Inumochi is “fundamental to the slider and its satisfactory operation.” (Brief at 11.)
Appellants do not provide any reasoning in support of the belief, other than asserting
that the U-shaped portion provided by ridge 8 is spaced from the leading edge by taper
3. However, the “leading edge,” as claimed, does not distinguish over the leading
portion of taper 3. We thus disagree, in view of the actual requirements of claim 66,
that ridge 8 is spaced from “the leading edge” by taper 3.
In any event, appellants also imply that the modification contemplated by the
rejection would “render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” That may
be true, if one were to subscribe to the proposition that taper 3 is “fundamental” to the
slider and its satisfactory operation in Inumochi.
However, claim 66 simply adds, to base claim 40, the limitation that each of the
rails has “a uniform thickness” between the leading and trailing edges. We find it
unnecessary to go beyond the four corners of the Inumochi reference to confirm prima
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007