Appeal No. 2005-0430
Application No. 09/817,241
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2
over Tamura, the Examiner asserts that although the claimed sheet
resistivity of the conductive sticky layer is not explicitly
disclosed, such wide range of sheet resistivity would have been
obvious (answer, page 3). The Examiner further argues that
Appellants’ specification has not disclosed how such range may
solve any problem or yield any unexpected results (id.).
Appellants’ only rebuttal appears to be based on the same reasons
provided in support of patentability of base claim 6 (brief,
pages 11 & 12).
Although for each ground of rejection, the claims may be
argued separately or as a group, only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Furthermore, arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered (37 CFR §
41.67(c)(1)(vii)). Here, we do not see that Appellants have
presented any rebuttal or pointed to any error in the Examiner’s
position. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2 is
sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 3,
Appellants argue that protective base 48 of Hirasawa cannot be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007