Appeal Number: 2006-1938
Application Number: 10/823,886
considered the references as a whole. We disagree. As
explained above, the examiner has considered the teachings in
their entirety particularly as regards the full scope of the
suggestions in the Kawamatsu disclosure. Appellant’s argument
that combining the references results in an “inoperable”
invention unsuitable for its intended purpose or that a
combination would be “unsatisfactory” is also not credited.
As noted above, Kawamatsu provides a reasonable expectation
of success.
Turning to claim 69, we note the limitation wherein the
groove base or sidewall has a protrusion. We acknowledge the
examiner’s position and the exemplary sketch appended the
examiner’s answer. Not withstanding the examiner’s imaginative
description, we are of the view that it is unreasonable to
interpret two adjacent grooves as a single groove with a
protrusion. We are constrained to give the claim language the
broadest reasonable interpretation, and we believe the
interpretation the examiner gives to the prior art is not
reasonable. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 69 is reversed.
Conclusion of Law
The examiner has made out a case of prima facie obviousness
by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to claim 1. The
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013