Appeal No. 1997-4087 Page 4
Application No. 08/298,375
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over AAPA in view of Myers. Rather than repeat the arguments
of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to
the briefs and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence
advanced by the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the
arguments of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-19. Accordingly, we reverse.
Regarding claims 1-6, 9, and 10, the appellant makes the
following argument.
Myers does not disclose a structure wherein two
adhesively intersecured elements have adhesive
receiving openings formed in each of them ...
wherein adhesive material is flowed into the
adhesive receiving openings in both of the two
elements. No combination of the art discussed on
pages 1-2 of the present specification and the Myers
reference disclosure meets these limitations.
(Appeal Br. at 14-15.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007