Appeal No. 2006-1460
Application No. 10/033,315
microprocessor (see the paragraph bridging columns 12-13)
satisfies the requirement for an electronic memory unit as
recited in dependent claims 11 and 12.
For the above stated reasons, we hereby sustain the Section
102 rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8-14 as being anticipated by
Wilding. However, we cannot sustain the corresponding rejection
of claim 5.
THE SECTION 103 REJECTION BASED ON WILDING
The examiner has correctly observed that the appellants’
argument concerning the fluid pressure requirements of claims
15 and 16 relate to anticipation rather than obviousness.
Moreover, a prima facie case exists for concluding that it would
have been obvious to provide the assembly of Wilding with such
fluid pressure capabilities in order to effectuate the desired
functions to be performed by this assembly. The appellants’
arguments concerning the selective welding feature of claims 19,
27 and 31-35 are similarly deficient. Patentee clearly discloses
constructing his assembly via a welding technique (e.g., see
lines 25-40 in column 8), and it would have been obvious to
practice this welding technique selectively in order to seal the
layers together while avoiding inadvertent weld obstruction of a
fluid flow channel.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007