Appeal No. 97-4161
Application 08/397,408
they would have been obvious on the basis of Bauernfeind ‘728
in view the prior art admitted by the appellants in the
specification at page 5, lines 28-31 and page 6, lines 19-22.
The primary reference has been discussed above. The prior art
admitted by the appellants at these two locations in their
specification has to do with the materials from which the
rollers have been made, and does not alleviate the several
problems pointed out above with regard to Bauernfeind ‘728.
Again, a prima facie case of obviousness is lacking as to the
two independent claims, and we cannot sustain this rejection.
It follows, of course, that if the rejections of the
independent claims cannot be sustained, neither can those of
the claims which depend from them.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007