Appeal 2006-1786
Application 10/322,859
We are again unpersuaded by the Appellants’ argument. As fully explained
in the Answer (e.g., see pp. 5-6 and 8-9), an artisan would have been motivated to
form the thermistor of Oguro with end surfaces free of diffused layers in order to
obtain a number of technical advantages. The Appellants have not explained why
the advantages expressly enumerated by the Examiner would not have motivated
an artisan to modify the Oguro thermistor in the manner under consideration.
Under these circumstances, we are constrained to regard the Appellants’ position
as being without perceptible merit.
Therefore, we again determine that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness which the Appellants have failed to successfully rebut
with argument or evidence to the contrary. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d
at 1444. It follows that we also hereby sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims
1-5, 7 and 8 as being unpatentable over Oguro in view of Furukawa.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007