Appeal No. 2006-1629
Application No. 10/104,569
inserts. (Reply Brief, page 3). These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth
above and in the Answer. Appellants have not considered the features of the cited references
discussed above. In particular, the Reichinger reference discloses that the bottom portion can be
in the form of an outward extending dome, and that the interior component chamber is not
attached to the surrounding gas containing chamber.
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, having evaluated the
prima facie case of obviousness in view of Appellants' arguments, we determine that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness that has not been adequately rebutted
by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007