Appeal 2006-1786
Application 10/322,859
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellants
and by the Examiner concerning the above noted rejections, we refer to the Brief
and to the Answer for a complete exposition thereof.
The Appellants have not separately argued any of the appealed claims in the
manner required by our regulation 37 C.F.R. § 41.35(c)(1)(vii)(2004). As a
consequence, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the rejected
claims, and all rejected claims will stand or fall in accordance with this
representative claim.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we will sustain each of
the rejections before us on this appeal.
Concerning the rejection based on Furukawa in view of Oguro, the
Examiner acknowledges that the externally exposed main surfaces of Furukawa’s
thermistor element are covered by a glass layer rather than a diffused layer as
required by all appealed claims including representative independent claim 1.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill
in this art to replace Furukawa’s glass layer with a diffused layer “in order to form
a reliable thermistor” (Answer 4) as taught by Oguro.
In response to the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion, the Appellants argue
that “there is no advantage to be gained by so modifying Furukawa’s thermistor”
(Br. 5).
The Appellants’ argument is not well taken. In the paragraph bridging pages
4 and 5 and in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of the Answer, the Examiner
has provided a detailed exposition of why an artisan would have been motivated to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007