Appeal No. 97-0576
Application No. 08/308,876
the examiner's rejections of appealed claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have also considered the teachings of the patent to
Kertok applied in the rejection of claim 10 under § 103 as well
as the teachings of the patent to Gerhards applied in the
rejection of claim 7 under § 103. However, we find nothing in
either of these references that would supply the motivation
missing from the rejection based on the combined teachings of
Zahradnik, Loomans, Schuur, Geier, Skidmore, Brydson and Griff.
Thus, we also cannot sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the fact that none of the examiner’s
rejections have been sustained, it has not been necessary to
consider the declaration of David Dear, filed by the appellants
as evidence of nonobviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007