Appeal No. 97-2611
Application 08/299,101
regard we agree with appellant's arguments at page 3, line 18,
to page 4, line 10, of the reply brief.
Accordingly, we conclude that, on the present
record, it would not have been obvious to modify the lead-side
ends of the opposite edges of the terminal body of the
admitted prior art apparatus to extend obliquely in the manner
defined in claims 1 and 6 (and therefore also required by
dependent claims 2 to 4, 10 and 11). In view of this
conclusion, it is unnecessary to decide whether it would also
have been obvious to provide such apparatus with a plurality
of projections, as recited in all of the appealed claims
except claim 6.
Conclusion
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007