Appeal No. 2005-1711
Application No. 10/217,370
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 20 as being obvious
over Srivastava in view of Nogami
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 6-7 of the final Office action mailed January 15, 2004.
Appellants’ position with regard to this rejection is set forth
on pages 19-20 of brief. Appellants do not dispute any of the
findings the examiner has made with regard to the teaching of
Srivastava. Appellants again argue that Nogami does not teach
peripheral openings having variable diameter.
For the reasons discussed, supra, with regard to the
teachings of Nogami, we are not convinced by such argument.
Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 20.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 20 as being obvious over Sirvastava in view
of Nogami.
III. Conclusion
Each of rejections is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007