Appeal No. 1998-1965 Page 13
Application No. 08/357,325
since Miller's glazing trim pieces are not interconnected to
form a unitary/integral finish portion (e.g., border).
Additionally, it is our opinion there is no suggestion in the
combined teachings of Miller and Kelley to arrive at the
claimed invention as set forth by claims 1, 11 and 18.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 7 and 10 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
Lastly we note that the drawing objection set forth by
the examiner on pages 3 and 4 of the answer relates to a
petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201.
Accordingly, we will not review this issue raised by examiner.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007