Appeal No. 2000-1477 Page 6
Application No. 08/654,739
Independent method claim 9 also contains the same limitations, and further
requires that the flattened portion be formed by pressing the tubular member, a
limitation about which the examiner has made no comment. For the reasons expressed
above with regard to claim 1, the rejection of claims 9-16 also is not sustained.
Although we did not need to address Mr. Storer’s declaration in the course of
evaluating the examiner’s rejection, we wish to comment in passing that we are
impressed by the fact that the claimed grille guard captured the major portion of the
market from the traditional grille guard over the course of a few years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007