Appeal No. 2000-1298
Application 08/938,779
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed September 2, 1999) for the
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’
brief (Paper No. 10, filed August 20, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed October 29, 1999) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner directs us to
Figure 8 of the Knocke patent urging that the closure plug
(601) seen therein reads directly on the structure recited in
appellants’ claims, with the exception that the closure plug
described in Knocke is not disclosed as being formed of
aluminum as required in the claims on appeal and lacks the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007