Appeal No. 2000-2108
Application No. 09/075,943
It follows that the examiner's rejection of claims 4
through 6 and 8 through 14, which are dependent upon claim 2,
under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carroll in view
Lazar will also not be sustained. As for the rejection of
claims 7, 15 and 16, also dependent from claim 2 and rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we have reviewed the additional patents to
Schier and Pitcher applied by the examiner, but find nothing
therein which provides for or renders obvious that which we
have indicated above to be lacking in the basic combination of
Carroll and Lazar. Accordingly, the examiner's rejections of
claims 7, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will also not be
sustained.
Regarding appellant's independent claims 17 and 18, we
observe that neither of these claims includes the limitation
regarding an upper slanted portion "having lateral sides being
formed into winged guide portions," as required in independent
claim 2 on appeal and as argued by appellant above.
Accordingly, that line of argument on appellant's part is not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007