Appeal 2007-0685
Application 10/242,336
Appealed claims 9, 10, 16-18, and 21-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacLeod in view of
Lehmann. Claims 11-15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of references
further in view of Habel.
Appellant has not separately argued any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected by the Examiner stand
or fall together. In addition, we note that Appellant has not substantively
addressed the § 103 rejection of claims 11-15, 19, and 20 over the
combination of MacLeod, Lehmann, and Habel, apparently relying solely
upon the asserted deficiency in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 9 and 16.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
MacLeod, like Appellant, discloses an apparatus comprising a
grooved, patterned electrode for electrochemically etching the grooved
pattern on an inner surface of a bearing wherein the electrode has the
presently claimed main body and an extension extending at the end of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013