Appeal 2007-2680
Application 10/756,352
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels and Bell.
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga and Masuda.
8. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga, Masuda and Elmore.
The Examiner contends motivation is provided explicitly from the
references for the combinations noted above (Answer 4-17). The Examiner
further contends that both Kato and Daniels are in the same field of endeavor
as Appellant’s claimed invention (Answer 16).
Appellant separately argues independent claims 1 and 26, and dependent
claims 6-22 and 25.
OPINION
CLAIMS 1 AND 26
Appellant argues that Kato and Daniels are non-analogous art because
they are neither in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed
invention, nor reasonably pertinent to the problem Appellant was trying to
solve (Br. 13-16). Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine
Bauer, Kato and Daniels absent impermissible hindsight (Br. 16-17).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s reasoning provided in support
of the combination of Bauer in view Kato and Daniels amounts to an
“obvious to try” rationale (Br. 17).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013