Appeal No. 96-1305
Application 08/188,629
the first and second sides recited in claim 18 is not found in
appellants’ prior art Fig. 12. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 18 as well as its dependent
claim 19.
For the same reasons we reverse the rejection of
independent claim 18, we reverse the rejection of independent
claim 10 and the more specific version of it found in
independent claim 17. Mimlitch does not cure the deficiencies
of appellants’ prior art Fig. 12. For the sake of simplicity,
we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been
obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to have combined the teachings
of Mimlitch and appellants’ admitted prior art Fig. 12.
However, the resulting combination does not yield the subject
matter of independent claims 10 and 17 on appeal for the
reasons argued by appellants in their brief.
In view of the foregoing, we have reversed the rejection
of each independent claim 10, 17 and 18 on appeal and,
therefore, the rejection of their respective dependent claims.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007