Appeal No. 96-2852
Application 08/055,573
foregoing deficiencies in the examiner’s prior art evidence, the
shape of the neck recited in claim 1 cannot be baldly dismissed
as an obvious matter of design choice. Compare In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Millen in view of Vernon and Lyle.
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 2, which depends from claim 1, as being unpatentable
over Millen in view of Vernon and Lyle, and further in view of
Baumgart. In short, Baumgart does not cure the above noted
shortcomings of the basic Millen-Vernon-Lyle combination with
respect to the subject matter recited in parent claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007