Appeal No. 2005-0874
Application No. 10/320,073
Col. 5, ll. 22-25. Accordingly, positioning the heat regulating
flange close to the motor would have allowed the flange to more
easily accomplish its intended function.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of Section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claim 23, and claims 19-20 which stand or fall with
claim 23, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sugimoto in view of
Kimura.
C. The Remaining Rejections
Since appellants do not present any arguments other than
with respect to claims 22 and 23 (see the Brief and Reply Brief
in their entirety), we adopt the examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law with regard to the remaining rejections
included in this appeal.
D. Summary
All of the rejections on appeal have been affirmed.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007