Appeal No. 1997-2567
Application 08/390,029
The examiner has not provided such an explanation. The
examiner has merely stated that there would be a benefit of
using Hahn’s screw for varying the cross section of the FR
‘536 imbibing openings or stopping the flow through them,
without explaining why the teachings in the references would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims 5, 7 and 10.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over FR ‘536 in view of Reetz and Warren is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over FR
‘536 in view of Reetz and Hahn is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007