Appeal No. 2005-2488
Application No. 10/150,497
seam), the specification states that such sections are
“integrally molded by the same resin material.” See page 12.
Thus, notwithstanding the examiner’s suggested interpretation at
pages 6 and 7 of the Answer to the contrary, we concur with the
appellant that the claimed probe is required to have a single
piece structure defining the claimed cylindrical trunk and thin
film sections as shown by Figure 4. See the Reply Brief in its
entirety for the appellant’s remark. This single piece
(seamless) structure, of course, is not taught by Beerwerth or
O’Hara. As correctly pointed out by the appellant (e.g., the
Brief, page 4), both Beerwerth, as shown by its Figure 1, and
O’Hara, as shown by Figure 2, teach at least a seam between the
window and the outer wall of the probe (see also Beerwerth,
column 6, lines 40-42 and column 7, lines 1-6 in reference to
Figure 1 and O’Hara, column 4, line 48 to column 5, line 6 in
reference to Figure 2).3 Thus, we concur with the appellant that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of Section 103.
3 The examiner has not asserted that Beerwerth and O’Hara
would have suggested a single piece structure defining
cylindrical trunk and thin film sections. See the Answer in its
entirety.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007