Appeal 2007-0053
Application 10/225,829
degree of predictability in the mechanical arts, and we do not find anything in Bird
or Yanagisawa that would negate a reasonable expectation of success when adding
weakened areas to Bird’s carrier tape. Thus, for the reasons stated supra in
addressing the "teaching away" argument, we find that the prior art references
would have led the skilled artisan to have had a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to dependent claims 11, 34, 51, 52, and 76, we agree with the
Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of
Yanagisawa to cut the slits or holes all the way through the tape (Finding of Fact
11), would have been led to modify the carrier tape of Bird with weakened areas
formed by cutting slits or holes through the entire thickness of the tape, including
the bottom cover layer 26 of Bird’s tape (Finding of Fact 2). As such, the
combined teaching of Bird and Yanagisawa would have led one having ordinary
skill in the art to cut at least one weakened feature into the bottom cover layer of
the carrier tape, as recited in these dependent claims.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-24, 27-30, 32-34, 36-45, 47, 48, 50-54, 56, 58-72, 74-80, and
82-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bird and Yanagisawa.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-24, 27-30, 32-34,
36-45, 47, 48, 50-54, 56, 58-72, 74-80, and 82-84 is AFFIRMED.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013