Appeal No. 2004-0551 Page 15
Application No. 09/393,256
Claim 9
Claim 9 reads as follows:
The probe defined in claim 1 wherein said recess is parabolic in cross section.
Since the groove 7 of Kurokawa is not parabolic in cross section3 for the reasons
set forth in the brief (p. 11) and reply brief (p. 4), all the limitations of claim 9 are not
disclosed in Kurokawa. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kurokawa is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 30 to 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Weiland.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends indirectly from claim 1. In the rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner determined only that the added limitation set forth in
claim 8 would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. The examiner did not conclude that the limitation in claim 1 that
3 A U-shaped cross section is not a parabolic cross section. Thus, Kurokawa's U-shaped groove
is not parabolic in cross section.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007