Appeal No. 97-2726 Page 5
Application No. 08/296,393
second portion located adjacent the beveled first portion, and
(3) a final third portion located adjacent the second portion.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 3-5) that
each element of claims 9 and 14 is not found in Quintana. In
that regard, it is our opinion that the examiner's dissection
(answer, pp. 3-4) of Quintana's beveled first portion so as to be
both the claimed beveled portion and the claimed lead-in portion
is inappropriate. It is clear to us, that the claimed lead-in
portion must be a separate and distinct portion from the claimed
beveled portion and such is not taught by Quintana.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claims 9 and 14, as well as
dependent claim 11, is reversed.
Claims 10, 12 and 13
We have also reviewed the patent to Levinson additionally
applied in the rejection of claims 10, 12 and 13 (dependent on
claim 9) but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiency of Quintana discussed above regarding claim 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007