Appeal No. 98-2097
Application NO. 08/670,320
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 13), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
12 and 14).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
Hardy reference, and the respective viewpoints of appellants
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This panel of the board focuses upon claim 1, the sole
independent claim in the application. An express limitation
set forth in this claim is a "snap-fitted cap" mounted to a
spool to assist in retaining the spool to a spindle.
As to the significance of this particular limitation, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007