Appeal 2006-1199
Application 10/693,045
12. The assembly of claim 10 wherein said sensor feed tube is disposed
exteriorly of said barrel.
II. PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner
relies upon the following references:
Maatsch US 3,396,960 Aug. 13, 1968
Fradeneck US 3,813,943 Jun. 4, 1974
III. REJECTION
Claims 1 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Fradeneck and Maatsch.
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCULSIONS
We have carefully considered the claims, specification, and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that the Examiner’s §103 rejection is well founded. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal under §103.
However, since our reasons for affirming the § 103 rejection are materially
different from those set forth in the Answer, we denominate our affirmance as
including a new ground of rejection. Our reasons for these determinations follow.
As evidence of the obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on, inter alia, the
disclosure of Fradeneck. (See Answer 3-4). The Appellants do not challenge the
Examiner’s findings at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007