Appeal No. 1997-2316
Application No. 08/329,616
Further, all of the claims require that the
rectangular recess (the “third” recess in claims 1,
3-11 and the “second” recess in claims 15-18) has a
smaller diameter than the circular first recess.
Suzuki ‘961 and ‘465 contain no such suggestion.
We agree with appellants’ arguments in their entirety.
The combined teachings of Suzuki ‘961 and Suzuki ‘465 would
not have suggested a rectangular recess that is smaller in
diameter than the circular recesses. In summary, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 18 based upon
the teachings of Suzuki ‘961 and Suzuki ‘465 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007