Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
(Reply Br. 15 and 17-19). In the Brief, Appellants rely primarily on their
arguments against Mancusi for failing to teach or suggest two potting steps
and do not other wise specifically contest the Examiner’s reliance on the
other applied references for teaching auxiliary features of the various claims
subject to each of Rejections I through S. For the reasons presented above,
we do not find these arguments and the Runkle Declaration persuasive.
Concerning Rejection I; that is, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mancusi in
view of JP 11-169676, Appellants argue the claims together. Consequently,
we select claim 1 as the representative claim for this ground of rejection. As
we note above, Appellants present substantially the same arguments in the
Brief with respect to Rejection I as were presented against Rejection H.
For the reasons stated above, the teachings of Mancusi are sufficient
to render the subject matter of claim 1 prima facie obvious. Appellants do
not argue for the patentability of representative claim 1 on the basis of any
asserted patentable difference between mold potting and the second potting
step suggested by Mancusi. As such, we need not further discuss the
Examiner’s reliance on JP 11-169, 676 with regard to this ground of
rejection and we affirm this ground of rejection for substantially the reasons
presented above and in the Answer.
Likewise, we affirm Rejections J through O as presented in the
Answer for the reasons stated above with respect to Rejection H. In this
regard, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reliance on the additionally
cited prior art teachings as cited in Rejections J through O for teaching or
suggesting the additional claimed features associated with the claims
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013