Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
claims 14-20, and we will not sustain this rejection.
There is a further rejection of claims 17 and 18, in
which either Eckert or Endres is combined with Enloe. The
deficiencies of the two primary references have been discussed
above. Enloe has been applied by the examiner for teaching
the partition height recited in these two claims. Be that as
it may, Enloe
does not alleviate the shortcomings in either Eckert or
Endres, and therefore this rejection cannot be sustained.
The last rejection offered by the examiner is that claims
1-13 and 19 are unpatentable over Enloe in view of Lindquist,
Lawson and Kao. The examiner concludes that Enloe teaches all
of the structure recited in claim 1 except that the Enloe
transverse
partition is resilient rather than the required nonresilient
(Answer, page 9). From that point on, we are unable to follow
the examiner’s meandering path of reasoning, or to appreciate
the
following conclusion set out by the examiner on pages 9 and 10
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007