Appeal No. 97-2483
Application 08/575,830
Grote does not teach this feature. Furthermore, we cannot
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated by the teachings of Rosenberg to
incorporate the crossing channels of Rosenberg into Grote’s
tool inasmuch as Grote’s modified tool would then be incapable
of removing a cap of the type shown in Grote’s drawings.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims
2, 3 and 8. In addition, we will not sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 7 since this claim is dependent on claim 2.
In summary, we have affirmed the rejection of claims 1
and 4 under § 102(b), we have affirmed the rejection of claims
5 and 6 under § 103, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 7
under the second paragraph of § 112, and we have reversed the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 7 and 8 under § 103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims
is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007