Appeal 2006-2793
Application 10/829,536
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3 and
7-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rinsma and claims 4-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rinsma.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Final Rejection (mailed July 14, 2005) and Answer (mailed March 24,
2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments in the Brief (filed January
17, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed May 22, 2006).
Appellant does not list the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rinsma as a ground of rejection to
be reviewed on appeal (Br. 6). It is apparent from Appellant’s statement “all
claims 1 to 28 are appealed” (Br. 2), however, that Appellant intends to
appeal both rejections set forth in the Final Rejection. We therefore treat the
rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as standing or falling with
the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), so Appellant
is not prejudiced by the failure to expressly include the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
THE ISSUES
With respect to independent claim 1, the issue before us is whether the
Examiner has established that Rinsma discloses, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, that Rinsma’s pressure pad 36, 53 and nut/groove
connection 39, 39’ cooperate to limit “a maximum component of force
acting upon the force transducer upon generating of the clamping force” as
called for in claim 1. Essentially the same issue is presented with respect to
independent claim 26. Specifically, we must decide whether the Examiner
has established that Rinsma discloses, either expressly or under principles of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013