Appeal No. 1998-1240
Application 08/198,443
the appellant, limited to a cover having only one opening.
Thus, the appellant’s position that the subject matter
recited in claims 1 through 3, 6, 8 and 11 distinguishes over
the cover disclosed by Puste is not persuasive. Accordingly,
we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
these claims.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Puste in view
of Anglin, claim 5 as being unpatentable over Puste in view of
Henrich, claim 7 as being unpatentable over Puste in view of
Bardin and Tompkins, claim 9 as being unpatentable over Puste
in view of Woodruff and claim 10 as being unpatentable over
Puste in view of Mosgoffian.
These dependent claims recite various expedients for
securing the claimed cover in place. The secondary references
show these expedients to be conventional and well known.
Their self-evident advantages justify the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the Puste
cover to include same and belie the appellant’s contention
(see pages 21 through 28 in the main brief) that the proposed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007