Appeal No. 2006-1621
Application No. 10/107,672
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Gagliardi 5,121,289 June 9, 1992
Lock 5,451,868 Sept. 19, 1995
Izawa et al. (Izawa) 5,637,995 June 10, 1997
Riehl et al. (Riehl) 6,366,194 Apr. 2, 2002
(filed Sept. 20, 1999)
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Gagliardi.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lock.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Izawa.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gagliardi or
Lock.
Claims 3, 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gagliardi in view of Riehl.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 18 and 19, and the obviousness rejections of
claims 3, 4, 9 and 10.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 based upon the teachings of
Gagliardi, we agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 3) that the sensor housing 2 is a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007