Appeal No. 2004-0616
Application 09/692,982
transition region within the range specified in the claims on
appeal. In this light, it is clear to us that the limitation at
issue cannot be dismissed as merely being a matter of "obvious
design choice,” based solely on the examiner's bald assertion
that such is the case.
For the reasons set forth above, we share appellants’ view
that the examiner has not made out a prima facie case of
obviousness, and for that reason we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 14
through 16 and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ripka.
The next rejection for our consideration is that of claims
1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 14 through 16 and 18 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ripka in view
of Chase. In this instance, the examiner expressly concedes that
Ripka does not disclose a transition region having a length as
specified in independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal, but urges
that Chase teaches a transition region of the claimed length and
which satisfies the various relationships set forth in
appellants’ claims on appeal. From the combined teachings of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007