Appeal No. 2000-0321 Page 8
Application No. 08/834,578
modifications would not have arrived at the claimed
invention.1
We have reviewed the references to Arrowsmith '306,
Arrowsmith '523, Lobel, Meyer and Gilkerson but find nothing
therein which would have suggested modifying Rigandi to arrive
at the claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 15 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter
1The examiner never determined that any of the applied
prior art would have made it obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
made Rigandi's rigid member 80 resilient.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007