Appeal No. 1997-1162
Application 08/200,455
The objections to claim 11-19, the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and the warning that claims
11 and 19 are substantial duplicates have been overcome
(Examiner's Answer, page 6).
Claims 11-13 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over one of either Jabbari or
Stefansky or Simazu in view of one of either Voll or Fruge.
Claims 11, 12, and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over MacLeod in view of either
Fruge or Voll.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 19) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Revised Appeal Brief (Paper
No. 18) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of
Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Obviousness
The Examiner has properly interpreted the terms
"one-piece integrally formed unit" (claim 11) and "one-piece
integrally formed unitary element" (claim 19) to require a
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007