Appeal No. 2000-0081
Application No. 08/785,099
hand ends of shaft 1 and conduits 7 and 21 (as seen in Fig.
1), we do not consider that Stahl would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill that shaft 1 and conduit 21 of Fleissner be
provided with joining members at their ends to thereby define
a hermetically sealed cavity, as claimed. The portions of
Stahl which the examiner identifies as providing motivation
for such a modification of Fleissner, namely, the Abstract and
col. 4, lines 9 to 47, would not, in our view, have done so.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and therefore of
dependent claims 2 to 7 will not be sustained. Also, the
rejection of claims 8 to 27 will not be sustained, since the
additional references applied therein, Bos and Neuhöffer, do
not supply the above-noted deficiencies of the combination of
Fleissner and Stahl.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 27 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007