Appeal 2006-1924
Application 09/954,506
taken with Roessler and Justmann. Claims 41 and 45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajala taken with Roessler,
Justmann and Widlund. Claims 32, 41-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fernfors in view of Widlund, and
Rajala, further taken with Roessler and Justmann.
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However,
we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject
matter would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. In this
regard, Appellants have not persuaded us of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s stated rejections. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections for substantially the reasons expressed in the Answer and as
further discussed below.
Concerning the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-12, and 14-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fernfors in view of
Wada, Datta, Pohjola, and Rajala, we note that Appellants argue the claims
together as a group with the exception of claim 15. We select claim 1 as
representative of rejected claims 1, 2, 7-12, 14, and 16-31.
With regard to representative claim 1, Appellants (Reply Br. 2) do not
argue that the combination of the applied references set forth by the
Examiner would not result in a process corresponding to the claimed
process. Moreover, Appellants do not dispute that the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Fernfors, based on the teachings of Wada, would have been
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See
Answer 7 and the Briefs, in their entirety.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007