Appeal No. 99-0158
Application 08/616,787
particularly the appellant’s specification, belies the
examiner’s contention that the thermal expansion features
recited in claims 1, 10 and 23 do not solve a stated problem
or serve any purpose.
In light of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
combined teachings of Fields and Greacen would not have
suggested the subject matter recited in independent claims 1,
10 and 23 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of these claims.
Since neither Macha nor Miller cures the foregoing flaws
in the basic Fields/Greacen combination, we also shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent
claims 5, 9 and 11.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007