Appeal No. 2004-1704
Application No. 10/225,994
As to appealed claims 2, 4, 8, and 12, we refer to the
examiner’s reasonable analyses at pages 5-7 of the answer.
Because the appellant has not adequately rebutted the
examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation and obviousness, we
uphold rejections I and III.
II. Rejection Based on Fargier in View of Reede
Regarding this ground of rejection, the appellant’s main
argument is that there is no teaching in either Fargier or Reede
of “a locking member attached to said sensor on said first face
of said backing plate and extending through said hole in said
friction material,” as recited in appealed claim 1. (Appeal
brief at 5-6; reply brief at 1-2.) The examiner, on the other
hand, alleges that “[i]nstallation of the sensor of Fargier in a
hole in the friction material as taught by Reede results in the
sensor extending through a hole of the friction material as well
as the locking member 24 extending through at least a portion of
the hole as required by the claims.” (Emphasis added; answer at
7.)
We cannot agree with the examiner on this issue. As
pointed out by the appellant (reply brief at 1-2), neither
Fargier’s locking member 24 nor any of Reede’s elements
corresponds to a “locking member” that extends through a hole in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007