Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895 Page 8
roughness macroscopic projections” (brief, page 7). We are not
persuaded by those arguments for the reasons stated above.
Moreover, we note that representative claim 1 does not call for a
cleaning function for either of the separately claimed
macroscopic irregularities or the projections as specified in
representative claim 1.4 Since we have found that the additional
references applied by the examiner are not necessary to render
the claimed subject matter prima facie obvious, we need not
address the additional arguments directed to those references set
forth in the briefs.
As a final point, we observe that no arguments asserting or
establishing unexpected results for the claimed subject matter
has been presented. Consequently, we sustain the examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14.
Claims 15, 19-24, 35 and 39-44
Representative claim 15 is drawn to an arrangement
comprising a first printed circuit board with a card edge
4 It is not clear why appellants link the separately claimed
projections and macroscopic irregularities in the arguments. In
the event of further prosecution of this subject matter, the
examiner should also explore whether or not claim 1 and the
claims depending thereon comply with the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 in that appellants may not be claiming what they
regard as their invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007