Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 14
Application No. 08/814,272
edges having an upwardly arched shape complementary to the
apertures (48) which form the windows.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 18, and of claims 5, 6 and 19
which stand or fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lewis in view of Schlicht et al.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 to 3, 7 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 20 to 23, 25, 27, 28 and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fimbell or
Norberg, claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fimbell or Norberg and claims 5, 6, 18 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fimbell
or Norberg in view of Schlicht is reversed. However, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 3, 7 to 10, 12,
14 to 16, 20 to 23, 25, 27, 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Lewis, claims 4, 11, 13, 17, 24, 26
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis
and claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lewis in view of Schlicht is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007