Appeal No. 1999-2030 Page 11
Application No. 08/423,077
3, 5 to 8, 10 to 13, 15, 16 and 18 to 20 dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4, 9 and 14
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 9 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kolff.
In the answer (p. 3), the examiner determined the added
subject matter recited in dependent claims 4, 9 and 14 would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. However, for the
reasons set forth above with respect to parent claim 1, the
claimed "means for retaining" is not taught by Kolff. Thus,
the examiner has not established that the claimed subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 4, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 22
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007