Appeal 2006-2901
Application 10/245,088
specification or the cited prior art with Appellants’ reasonably stated
position on this matter. In this regard, we note that Appellants report at
paragraph 0062 of their specification that the void content of Koase
(Japanese Patent Publication No. 20697/81) is 43.6 percent, which is outside
the here claimed range.
The Examiner has not otherwise explained how a void content within
the claimed void content range can be attributed to or calculated for the
doctor blade described by Koase based on the information furnished in
Koase. Consequently, on this record, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection.
As for the separate obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2 and
4, the Examiner has not persuasively explained how Carrier makes up for the
aforementioned deficiency in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection as to the
here claimed void content, such that the void content would have been
rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, we note
that the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure of Carrier that would be
suggestive of the claimed doctor blade void content.
It follows that we shall also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection, on this record.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007