Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
obvious matter of design choice to form the slots/slits of Jory (as
modified) in the particular manner set forth in these claims. We
again point to the clear teachings of Coit (page 2, lines 61-72) in
support of this position. Moreover, we observe that Figures 1 and
2 of Coit appears to show slits like those required in appellants'
claim 20, while Figure 3 of Coit shows slits (5) in a configuration
like that required in appellants' claim 19. Thus, the examiner's3
rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Jory
and Coit is sustained.
Given that each of the examiner's respective rejections of the
appealed claims has been sustained, it follows that the examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 3 through 5, 9 through 12, 19 and 20
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
It appears to us that the dependency of claim 20 is in error, since we3
find no antecedent basis for "the intersection" set forth in claim 20, or "the
pair of rectilinear slots" set forth therein, in parent claim 1. Correction of
this error should be attended to in any further prosecution of the application
before the examiner.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007