Appeal No. 95-2623
Application 08/084,623
wherein said helical cut has a predetermined width and
a predetermined number of turns and wherein the spacing of
said turns and said width are in a predetermined ratio.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Kahn et al. (Kahn) 3,179,087 Apr. 20, 1965
Latorre et al. (Latorre) 4,826,143 May 02, 1989
Kazama 5,004,977 Apr. 02, 1991
Claims 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Kazama and Kahn
with respect to claim 22, and adds Latorre with respect to
claims 23-26.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007