Appeal No. 2005-1384
Application 09/886,200
reasonable expectation of success when combining these two
references. We explained in greater detail at pages 9 through 11
of our prior decision a pertinent feature of both references to
the extent that they related to the argued features of claims 12
and 13 in the second stated rejection.
Lastly, under topic E at pages 5 and 6 of the Request for
Rehearing, appellant wrongly urges again that examiner has not
identified any source of motivation for combining the respective
references. Again, the focus of the arguments is upon the
examiner’s alleged deficiencies rather than any argued deficiency
with respect to our reasoning set forth in our prior opinion.
Moreover, when viewed from a motivational perspective, our
analysis in the prior decision greatly emphasizes the
combinablitiy of Kikuchi with Ohsawa and optionally with the IBM
Technical Disclosure Bulletin as well as Kikuchi with Kobayashi
in the respective rejections.
At this point, it also deserves mention as stated at the top
of page 3 of our earlier opinion, that we sustained the three
separately stated rejections of the examiner “for the reasons set
forth by the examiner as embellished upon here.” Contrary to the
view expressed at the bottom of page 6 of the Request for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007