Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
nothing and the examiner points to nothing in the applied
references which would have suggested modifying this prior art
practice in such a manner as to result in the here claimed method
and, in particular, steps iii) and iv) thereof.
For the reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of the appealed claims based upon Kühn
or alternatively based upon Stickles or Mueller or Paterson in
view of the Metals Handbook.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007