Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
our opinion that the ridges between the grooves of Studer are
"substantially triangular" as required by claim 18.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The obviousness rejections
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claim 20 as
being unpatentable over Studer in view of Zaleski, appellants'
only argument (brief, page 9) is that Zaleski does not show or
suggest elongated ridges with triangular cross sections,6
which appellants have argued that Studer lacks. As we have
concluded, supra, that Studer does disclose elongated ridges
having substantially triangular cross-sectional shapes and as
appellants have offered no other argument in support of the
patentability of claim 20, it follows that we shall also
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Studer in view of Zaleski.
The examiner also rejects claims 18 and 19 as being
unpatentable over Baylo in view of Lorme. Baylo discloses a
We interpret appellants' argument to be that Zaleski does not teach or6
suggest ridges having "substantially triangular" cross sections, as this is
the terminology used in claim 18.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007