Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 4
Application No. 08/543,153
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Storms in view of Johnson, Jr.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Duffy in view of Storms.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 21, mailed November 6, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 20, filed October 14, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 22, filed January 5, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and 3
3We note that the 115° included angle referred to on page
9, lines 11-12, of the specification is not in harmony with
the 155° included angle referred to on page 3, lines 25-26, of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007