Appeal No. 98-0358
Application 08/660,719
mentioned above, the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference. As to appellants argument relative to
claims 4 and 5
(main brief, pages 5 and 6 and reply brief, page 2), we refer
to
our discussions, supra, in response thereto. Additionally, we
consider the disclosed area and porosity ranges
(specification, page 3) to simply denote preferred working
ranges since no indication is given by appellants in the
specification that they are otherwise, e.g. yield unexpected
results.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sheets in view of Kirkpatrick.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007