Appeal No. 97-0445
Application 08/170,020
Rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 3 is rejected as being obvious over Hasegawa
and Kobayashi. We have considered Appellant’s argument
[brief, pages 6 and 7] and Examiner’s rejection and response
[answer, pages 6, 7 and 11]. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and
thus contains at least the above discussed limitation of claim
2. Kobayashi does not cure the deficiency found in Hasegawa
in meeting claim 2. Therefore, we will not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 3 over Hasegawa and Kobayashi.
Rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 9 is rejected as being obvious over Hasegawa
and Amar. We have reviewed Examiner’s position [answer, pages
7, 11 and 12] and Appellant’s argument [brief, page 8]. We
agree with Appellant that Amar neither shows the presence, nor
the suggestion, of “an associated latch that abuts an interior
edge of the cutout portion... position” [claim 9, lines 1 to
4]. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 9 over Hasegawa and Amar.
In summary, we have affirmed the rejection of claims
1, 4, 7 and 8 as being anticipated over Hasegawa under 35
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007