Appeal No. 2006-1621
Application No. 10/107,672
Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 based upon the teachings of Lock is sustained.
The anticipation rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 18 and 19 based upon the teachings of Lock is
likewise sustained because appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for these
claims.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 based upon the teachings of Izawa,
we agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4) that the case 73 in Izawa (Figure 32)
functions as a cup-shaped element, that the magnet 69 and the housing 72 function together as a
retaining part for the electronic sensing element 61, that the electronic sensing element is
embedded in the cup-shaped element and the retaining part by a sealant 67, and that the retaining
part covers an opening in the cup-shaped part. Again, appellants argue (brief, pages 7 and 8) that
the opening for the sealant in Izawa is on the end of the sensor, and not on the side of the sensor.
As indicated supra, claim 1 on appeal does not preclude the lateral opening from being on the
end of the sensor. In summary, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 based upon the teachings of
Izawa is sustained. The anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 6 based upon the teachings of
Izawa is sustained because appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for these
claims.
The obviousness rejections of claims 3, 4, 9 and 10 are sustained because appellants have
not presented any patentability arguments for these claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007