Appeal No. 2004-1321 Page 8
Application No. 10/002,633
symmetrical troughs" are readable on the cylindrical pockets of Cermak which are each
formed by rotation of a rectangle (i.e., a trapezoidal) about the axis of the cylinder.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cermak is affirmed.
The appellants have grouped claims 1, 5 and 6 as standing or falling together.3
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 5 and 6 fall with claim 1.
Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cermak is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cermak in view of Ashiwake. We will also not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Livingood in view of Wettstein.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
3 See page 9 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007