Appeal No. 97-0928 Page 3
Application No. 08/353,190
in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 9, filed May 28, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
July 31, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Both of the examiner's rejections are based upon the
examiner's determination that Figure 6 of Hasty discloses an
upstanding dome portion having a solid flange.
The appellant argues that the flange disclosed in Figure 6
of Hasty on the upstanding dome portion is not a solid flange.
Thus, the real issue on appeal is whether or not the flange
disclosed in Figure 6 of Hasty on the upstanding dome portion is
solid.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007