Appeal No. 2000-0003 Page 10
Application No. 08/618,814
that Dolveck's Figures 3 to 6 do not show a region of the
peripheral wall (the peripheral wall is the wall that extends
upwardly from the base as shown in Figure 3) which remains at
the original diameter while the peripheral wall above that
region is reduced in diameter.
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in
Dolveck for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2 to 6 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 to 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 7 to 14 depend from claim 1. Since
the examiner has not set forth any reasoning as to why the
subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art, we reverse the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 7 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007