Appeal 2007-1098
Application 10/026,059
1 TEDDY S. GRON, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
2
3 I disagree with findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Majority
4 which are critical to its conclusion that the Examiner erred in finally rejecting
5 Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 of Application 10/026,059 under 35 U.S.C.
6 § 103 in view of prior art including Luce’s teachings. To the contrary, I would
7 affirm all the Examiner’s final rejections for the following reasons.
8 First, while Appellants acknowledge that Claims 6, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20
9 stand separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in view of the
10 combined teachings of Luce and Khan (Claim 6), or Luce and Kirkpatrick (Claims
11 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20), Appellants allow that all appealed rejections stand or fall
12 with the Examiner’s final rejection of
13 Claim 1 (Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, and 13 depend from, and stand or fall with, Claim 1)
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Luce. Appellants state:
15 Appellant respectfully submits that claim 6 is not obvious in
16 view of Luce and Khan because claim 6 depends from claim 1 and
17 Luce and Khan do not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1.
18
19 (Appeal Br. 9); and
20 Appellant respectfully submits that claim 14 is not obvious in
21 view of Luce and Kirkpatrick because claim 14 depends from
22 claim 1 and Luce and Kirkpatrick do not disclose or suggest the
23 limitations of claim 1. Appellant has shown above that Luce does not
24 disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Kirkpatrick discloses an
25 alarm clock . . . rather than a structure that surrounds an enclosure of an
26 electronic component and that increases a thermal mass of the
27 electronic component as claimed in claim 1.
28
29
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013