Appeal No. 96-1668
Application 08/231,258
Figure 5, we conclude that the artisan would not have found it
obvious to have made its extent or height less than half way
into the erasure preventing device for purposes of aligning
the cover during assembly as required at the end of
representative claim 1 on appeal.
Since we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1, we
also reverse the rejection of its respective dependent claims
2, 3 and 5. Since the examiner does not offer any additional
rationale for independent claims 6 through 8, we also reverse
the rejection of them, in addition to noting that the same
essential structural features recited in independent claim 1
are present in each of these independent claim as well.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007