Appeal No. 1999-1523 Page 12
Application No. 08/839,065
appellant. Furthermore, even if it would have been obvious to
make Rensch's connector as a single-piece of metal, there is
no suggestion of forming such a single-piece from "a casted
piece of metal" as recited in claim 4.5
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed
and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
5We view the casting limitation of claim 4 (i.e., said
connector is formed as a single-piece from a casted piece of
metal) as presenting a structural limitation not accounted for
in the examiner's rejection of claim 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007