Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 18
Application No. 08/253,721
has been provided in equipment or structure similar to that of
the appellants.
The examiner responded to this argument (answer, pp. 5
and 9) by arguing that the claimed blind hole reads on the
recess formed by the raised rim 6 of Maeda. We agree. Thus, 8
it is our view that Maeda teaches all the limitations of claim
12.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 5
Claim 5 reads as follows:
The slide according to Claim 3 in which said plastic
material comprises a high density polyethylene material.
The examiner found (answer, pp. 5 and 8) that Ewell
teaches a high density polyethylene sheet material 25 as an
8The appellants did not reply to the examiner's response
to the appellants' argument.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007