Appeal No. 95-5059
Application 08/157,872
the examiner, the “protuberant region” reads on the “bulge”
directly below the upper finger 15, the “reverse-turned region”
between the bulge and the tip of the upper edge 15, and the
“nonprotuberant border flange region” between that and upper edge
15. The examiner has not stated where the “shoulder region” is
located, which constitutes a deficiency in his rejection. The
rejection clearly fails, however, because the claim requires that
the “protuberant region” be adjacent the inner edge of the
extension and not the outer edge, where it has been located by
the examiner in his analysis of Daimler Benz. Moreover, to call
the protuberant region the bulge adjacent to the inner edge 15
would cause it to be on the opposite surface of the device from
the other components, thus not being in conformance with the
other requirements of the claim.
For the reasons expressed above, it is our conclusion that
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 under Section
102(b) should not be sustained.
The Examiner’s Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). All three of the examiner’s rejections under
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007