Appeal No. 1997-2981
Application No. 08/161,304
certain practices are known in the lumber industry. However,
we find no suggestion in either Idelsohn or Pryor for
providing a “further shaped part” from the utilization of the
determined contour of the first shaped part, as claimed. The
examiner has failed to particularly point out how each and
every claimed element is met by the applied references.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 39 and 46 under
both 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 102(e) but we have not sustained
the rejection of claims 41 through 45 and 47 through 50 under
either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or § 102(e). Accordingly, the
examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007