Appeal No. 2002-1573
Application No. 09/113,446
housing portion that is akin to the claimed one-piece hollow body
portion is not one-piece but is configured as housing parts that
are joined together. It is for this reason that the anticipation
rejection cannot be sustained.
The obviousness rejections
We do not sustain the respective rejections of claims 9 and
10 and claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Simply stated, the teaching of Matone and the disclosure of
Mottmiller do not overcome the deficiency of the Schmidt patent,
as discussed immediately above.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
The examiner should assess the patentability of appellants'
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of prior art, e.g., Schmidt,
and taking into full account the fabrication options available to
one having ordinary skill in the art of one-piece and multiple
part constructions with their respective known benefits.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007