Appeal No. 1998-3007 Page 14
Application No. 08/690,994
scoop as recited in claim 22. In that regard, the examiner's
determination that the recited shape limitations of claim 22
would have been obvious is not supported by any evidence and
thus must be reversed.
With regard to claim 19, and claim 20 dependent thereon,
it is our opinion that the applied prior art would not have
suggested the recited method steps. The examiner's
determination that the method steps of claim 19 would have
been obvious is not supported by any evidence and thus must be
reversed. In that regard, we agree with the appellant (brief,
p. 10) that there is no suggestion or teaching in the applied
prior art of the recited step of "ripping" (see paragraph (a)
of claim 19) the tail section.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 13 and 15 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007