Appeal No. 2003-0125
Application No. 09/722,529
Obviousness
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Leverick.
Claim 27 depends from independent claim 26, which latter
claim we earlier determined was not anticipated by the Hansen
teaching. Irrespective of whether Leverick would have motivated
one having ordinary skill in the art to use adhesive, it is quite
clear to us that the collective teachings of Hansen and Leverick
would not have been suggestive of a blank for effecting an
outwardly bowed relationship, as claimed. Thus, the obviousness
rejection cannot be sustained.
Obviousness-type double patenting
The examiner rejected claims 26 through 50 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
At the oral hearing of Tuesday, April 1, 2003, counsel for
appellant informed this panel of the Board that the appeal as to
this rejection is withdrawn, and that a terminal disclaimer will
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007