Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 24-27.
With respect to independent claim 28, appellants make the
same arguments discussed above with respect to claim 23. We
reach a different result with respect to claim 28, however,
because these arguments are actually relevant to claim 28. Claim
28 does recite the junction box and the manner in which the
junction box and plural serial connectors are interconnected to
each other. Appellants argue that there has been no showing why
the artisan would have been motivated to provide the connections
to the junction box as claimed. We agree with appellants that
the examiner has failed to address the specific limitations of
independent claim 28. The examiner has, therefore, failed to
establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of claim 28.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 28 or of claims 29-34 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 35, appellants argue
that “Lagergren does not describe, teach or suggest the flowmeter
with rotors/impellers having intermeshing lobes, sensors and
markers as provided in the claimed invention” [brief, page 16].
We note, however, that claim 35 does not recite any
rotors/impellers or any markers. With respect to Colonnello,
appellants argue that “there is no showing as to where the
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007