Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 16
Application No. 08/316,685
Claims 18 and 20
The appellant has not contested the examiner's
modification of Andrä by the teachings of Pichl (answer, pp.
8-9). The appellant's only argument (brief, p. 12) with
regard to this rejection is that neither reference teaches
adjacent axially spaced concentric rings. This argument is
unpersuasive with respect to Andrä for the reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
Claims 5 through 8, 12 and 17
Claims 5 through 8, 12 and 17 recite a cut-away (claims
5-8), a cut-away section (claim 12), or a cut-away inner end
(claim 17).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 10-12) that there is no
suggestion in the references themselves for the examiner's
modification of Andrä by the teachings of Withers (answer, pp.
7-8). We agree. Obviousness is tested by "what the combined
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007