Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
laminations. This viewpoint is buttressed by the claims of the
Martin patent and the discussion in column 1 (lines 20 through
24) of Martin of U.S. Patent No. 2,975,312 (of record in the
present application), which latter patent discloses interlocking
projections and recesses having the same identical outlines and
dimensions.
Based upon our assessment of the Zimmerle and Martin
patents, supra, we find ourselves in accord with appellant’s view
in the matter of the rejection of claim 1 (main brief, page 7)
that these teachings would not have been suggestive of using a
centrally located, generally circular indentation to interlock
laminas.
CLAIM 3
We reverse the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 11 falls therewith.
As is apparent from the rejection, the examiner relies upon
the Webb patent solely for its teaching of the application of a
counter force. However, like the appellant (main brief, pages 9
and 10 and reply brief, page 3), we recognize that the Webb
teaching of the use of counter pressure during lamina
interlocking (column 5, lines 53 through 60) would not have been
suggestive of applying a counter force during the “forming” step,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007