Appeal No. 1999-0701
Application No. 08/705,005
references or otherwise for concluding that the "barb" set
forth in claim 21 on appeal would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants'
invention. With further regard to claims 4 and 9 which depend
from claim 1, claim 19 which ultimately depends from claim 16
and claims 24 through 26 which depend from claim 23, we
observe that there is nothing in Sahota which provides for
that which we have discussed above as lacking in Blackshear as
applied against the respective independent claims.
To summarize our decision, we again note that the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16 through 18,
20, 22, 23 and 27 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Blackshear has not been sustained, and that the
rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 11 through 15, 19, 21 and 24
through 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blackshear in view
of Sahota has also not been sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007