Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
would not have had an outer housing which was (as recited in
independent claims 1 and 15) "softly rounded to define a
smoothly curving cross-sectional profile in any [every] plane
perpendicular to the rear mounting surface," such a housing
not being disclosed by Voss, and not being taught by De Luca
for the reasons discussed above in relation to rejection (1).
Rejection (3)
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 21
will not be sustained, since these claims are all ultimately
dependent on claims 1 or 15, and Richardson, the additionally
applied reference, does not supply the above-noted deficiency
in the combination of Voss and De Luca.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007