Appeal No. 98-0363
Application 08/740,389
on pages 3-15 of the brief, pages 1-3 of the reply brief and
pages 4 and 5 of the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief and by
the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review,
we will not sustain any of the above-noted rejections.
Rejections (1) and (2)
Both of these rejections are bottomed on the examiner's
view that it would have been obvious to modify the device of
Golkowski "so that only one point of attachment is used"
(final rejection, page 2) in view of the teachings of Carman.
In support of this position the answer states that:
Carman is only used to teach that providing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007