Appeal No. 96-0141
Application No. 08/084,097
be used in place of the fiber reinforcing material of Hirota
is not supported by any evidence (see the Answer, page 4, last
paragraph).
Patel is applied by the examiner to show the
conventionality of rotating core dies (Answer, page 5). We
find that Patel does not remedy any of the deficiencies of the
examiner’s rejection noted above.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Linne in view
of Pasco, the admitted prior art on page 3 of the
specification, and Hirato is reversed.
The rejection of claims 8-10 under § 103 over the same
references further in view of Patel is also reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007