Appeal No. 97-0677
Application No. 08/312,710
brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 29, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed November 25, 1996) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
CLAIM 1
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pyzytulla in
view of Ames.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner determined that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have employed the close proximity
tangential plane teaching of Ames (847) in the
construction of the device of Pyzytulla (642).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007