Appeal No. 2006-0859
Application No. 09/778,338
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VI. Whether the Rejection of Claim 6 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 6. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Appellants argue at page 6 of the brief, claim
6 is patentable because “the Examiner states that insulators are normally utilized” and
“it is not true that there would be insulations employed in the laminations of the
Neumann reference as the Examiner contends.” We disagree. The rejection before us
relies on the Uchiyama reference rather than the Neumann reference to teach the
insulating layer feature. As noted above, one cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. We deem this is particularly true in the present appeal where the other
reference was relied on to teach the claimed feature.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VII. Whether the Rejection of Claim 7 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 7. Accordingly, we affirm.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007