Appeal No. 97-1175 Page 11
Application No. 08/383,361
The appellant's argument is not persuasive for the
following reasons. First, with respect to claims 3 and 14,
the features of these claims are taught by Telesio. In that
regard, the claimed wear strips recited in claim 3 read on
Telesio's galvanized surfaces 66 and the claimed hollow
tubular form recited in claim 14 reads on the hollow guide
shoes 64 of Telesio as shown in Figure 4. Second, with
respect to claims 8, 11, 16 and 17, the examiner determined
(answer, pp. 3-4) that these features were conventional and
thereby would have been obvious to modify Telesio. Thus, the
examiner did not rely solely on the cited prior art in
rejecting these claims. As to the obviousness of modifying
Telesio by these conventional features, we note that the
appellant has not contested these determinations of the
examiner and we see no reason to reverse those determinations.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 3, 8, 11, 14 and 16 to 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007