Appeal 2006-2910
Application 10/226,586
within the borehole since they are held in a fixed position. In fact, these
connectors are axially adjusted by sliding them into the borehole and as
argued by the Examiner (Answer 9), the existence of a limit on the extent
they are slideable before they reach a fixed position is not precluded by the
claims.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lindahl and Nguyen outlined
supra, and to the extent claimed, we remain unconvinced by Appellants’
assertion that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 1, 14, 27, 32, and their
dependent claims under § 103(a). We note that Appellants separately
challenge the rejection of claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 39, and 41 (Br. 30-33) and
of claim 29 (Br. 33-36), but rely on similar arguments discussed above and
assert that neither Czech nor Scharen cures the deficiencies of Lindahl and
Nguyen. Based on our findings above and the weight of arguments
presented by Appellants and the Examiner’s, we also find the rejection of the
remaining claims over the proposed combination of references to be proper.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims or the rejection is not supported
by a legally sufficient basis for holding that the claimed subject would have
been obvious within the meaning of § 103(a). In view of our analysis above,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 27 over Szwec and
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 27, and 32, as
well as their dependent claims 4, 8-11, 15, 16, 20-23, 28, 30, 31, 33-36, and
38 over the combination of Lindahl and Nguyen. We also sustain the 35
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013