Appeal No. 2001-2140
Application No. 09/217,484
cure in the examiner’s application of Looney to rectify the
admitted failure of Messina to respond to the recess
limitation in claim 6.
For these reasons, the combined teachings of Messina,
Nordlund and Looney do not justify the examiner’s conclusion
that the differences between the subject matter recited in
claim 6 and the prior art are such that the 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.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 6, or claims 7 and 8 which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Messina in view of
Nordlund and Looney.
SUMMARY
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007