Appeal No. 96-1687
Application No. 08/192,067
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
the claim, and we will not sustain the rejection.
Independent claim 17 stands rejected on the basis of these
three references, also. Our position with regard to it is the
same, that is, we will not sustain the rejection for the reason
set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 7, the third of the independent claims, has been
rejected on the basis of Kakko-Chiloff, EP ‘559 and Bell, taken
further with Swiss ‘931, which was added for its teaching of
utilizing a drawbar extending axially completely through the die
cylinder. This reference also fails to overcome the problem we
voiced above with regard to Kakko-Chiloff and Bell, and the
rejection also cannot be sustained.
Likewise, the addition of the Fokos patent to the various
rejections fails to overcome the problem.
Since the rejections of the independent claims cannot be
sustained, it follows that those of the dependent claims also
must fall.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007