Appeal No. 96-4172
Application 08/098,594
plurality of spring-curving tools distributed around said drum
and immersed into said tub by said drum, said kiln, rollers, and
coiling bench forming a hot-coiling production line, said central
axis being bent as a whole even when free of load.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Hobracht 1,816,377 July 28, 1931
Widgren 2,218,864 Oct. 22, 1940
Bayerische Motoren Werke
(Great Britain) 1,198,713 July 15, 1970
Claims 16, 17, 19-22, and 28-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Widgren in view of the
British patent to BMW and Hobracht.
According to appellants, the claims do not stand or fall
together. However, the appellants have not provided separate
arguments with respect to the claims on appeal, excepting claim
19, which was separately argued on page 5 of the brief.
Consequently, all claims, excepting claim 19, are held to stand
or fall with claim 28.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have determined that the prior art does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007