Appeal No. 1998-0183
Application No. 08/413,040
(col. 3, lines 21 to 26). We are not persuaded by Appellants’
implication that since Goss calls this arrangement as being
carried out “ideally” (id.), (and thus implying a mere
fiction), it is not suggested by Goss. On the contrary, Goss
shows such a configuration in fig. 4. We, therefore, sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 13 over Goss.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007