Appeal 2007-3126
Application 10/359,275
a filling compound within the tube and encasing the sensor
wherein the filling compound is made from a material different from
the radially-wound, epoxy glass material of the tube.
C. The references and rejection
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Zunick US 4,150,270 April 17, 1979
Abdelgawad US 5,698,831 Dec. 16, 1977
Claims 1-8, 10, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Zunick in view of Abdelgawad.
THE ISSUES1
1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to make out a prima
facie case for combining the reference teachings in a way that satisfies claims 1
and 21, the only claims whose language is specifically argued in the Brief?
2. Should the rejection be reversed with respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 5,
and 10 on the ground that “the rejection fails to provide any indication of where the
1 The issues as stated herein represent the contentions of Appellants, who have the
burden on appeal to the Board to point out the errors in the Examiner’s position.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board,
an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence of prima
facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013