Appeal No. 2005-0180 6
Application No. 09/928,070
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 8, or claims 9 and 10 which depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kendall.
Concerning the examiner’s rejection of claims 13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Possati and Kendall, we find that even if
the substitution of the break-off region (24) of Kendall for the sacrificial region (14) of
Possati as urged by the examiner were to be undertaken, the result would not be a
stylus like that defined in appellant’s claims 13 through 15. As we noted in our
commentary on the teachings of Kendall above, this patent does not teach or suggest a
stylus stem “consisting of a changed structure of a stem material wherein a diameter of
the stem in the break-off region remains substantially unchanged.” Thus, since the
teachings and suggestions found in Possati and Kendall would not have made the
subject matter as a whole of claims 13 through 15 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary, we have refused to sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8
through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Kendall and the rejection of claims 13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007