Appeal No. 1998-2702
Application No. 08/466,507
F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)), we will sustain
the rejection of claims 5 and 7 on the basis of these two
references.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments set out
by the appellant as they might apply to those rejections which
we have sustained. The arguments focus almost entirely upon
the method by which the finished part is manufactured, that
is, conditions that exist for a time prior to the final form
of the part. However, the claims are not directed to a method
of manufacturing a part, but to the part in its finished form.
For this reason, the arguments are not persuasive.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 4, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Nakamura is sustained.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nakamura is not sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007