Appeal No. 2004-0619
Application No. 10/061,140
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 17, the
Appellants state that “[a]s described above the Burr patent does
not contain a description of a notch according to the claims of
the instant invention” and that “[a]s such no amount of routine
experimentation would result in the limitations described in claims
4 and 17" (brief, page 4). These statements are not persuasive of
nonobviousness since they are premised on the Appellants’ incorrect
belief that the notch feature of the independent claims on appeal
distinguishes from the notch feature of Burr. Similarly, there is
no persuasive merit in the Appellants’ remark concerning the § 103
rejection of claims 5 and 9-11, namely, that “[t]he description of
a notch as required by all the claims of the instant invention is
neither taught nor described in the Burr or Shirai patents” (brief,
page 5).
Under these circumstances, we also will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejections of claims 4 and 17 as being unpatentable over Burr
and of claims 5 and 9-11 as being unpatentable over Burr in view of
Shirai.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007