Ex parte SIEGFRIED R. WISSMANN et al. - Page 6

          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.                                              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007