Appeal No. 2006-2396
Application No. 10/293,133
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 for the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. Although appellants have pointed out individual deficiencies in
Roy and Smith, appellants have not persuasively addressed the examiner’s position that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to use tabs as taught by Smith to achieve the
alignment of the plates as required in Roy.
With respect to claim 7, appellants argue that neither Roy nor Smith teaches the
ultrasonic deformation as claimed [brief, pages 15-16]. The examiner responds that the
limitation of ultrasonic deformation is directed to a method of manufacture and does not
limit the structure of the claimed apparatus [answer, page 11].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 for the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. Although appellants have pointed out individual deficiencies in
Roy and Smith, appellants have not persuasively addressed the examiner’s position that
the claimed ultrasonic deformation does not relate to a structural difference in the
claimed apparatus.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s rejections of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-10, 13, 14, and 16-23
is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007