Appeal No. 97-2644
Application 08/381,531
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained.
For the same reasons as indicated above, it is
apparent that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6,
7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based solely on Schick will
also not be sustained.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 8 through
11 and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatent-
able over Schick in view of Stolz, we see nothing in the
patent to
Stolz which in any way provides for the deficiencies of Schick
as noted above. Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the
art were to consider combining the teachings of the applied
patents in the manner urged by the examiner, a proposition
which we consider to be highly questionable, the result would
not be a connecting pin as now claimed by appellant in the
claims before us on appeal. Accordingly, the examiner's
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007