Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
manner set forth in appellant’s claim 18. Thus, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) based on Coleman in view of "the state of the art" will
not be sustained.
We have additionally reviewed the references to Allen and
Blake applied by the examiner against dependent claims 20
through 25 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we
find nothing in either of these references, or in the
examiner’s attempted combination thereof with Coleman, that
accounts for formation of the particular rim structure and
ring member required in appellant’s independent claim 18, or
renders such formation steps obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims
20 through 25, which depend from claim 18, will not be
sustained.
In our deliberations leading to our affirmance of the
examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2 and 13 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we have considered both the teachings of
the prior art applied by the examiner and the evidence of
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007