Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,228
Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10 and 12 through 16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dietterich in view of Siefert, claims 7 and 11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dietterich in
view of Siefert and Graber and claims 21 through 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dietterich in view of Siefert and Grupe. Reference is made to the
examiner’s answer for details of these rejections.
In support of his rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through
10 and 12 through 16, the examiner relies on the Siefert patent
merely for a teaching of a molded clock face. In light of this
teaching, he concludes in substance that it would have been
obvious to configure Dietterich’s molding cavities to mold three-
dimensional instrument faces.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejections of the
appealed claims cannot be sustained.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007