Ex parte STECKER - Page 3




              Appeal No. 98-1001                                                                           3                
              Application No. 08/505,455                                                                                    







                                    THE REFERENCES OF RECORD                                                                


              As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references:                                

              Edge                         298,358                      May  13, 1884                                       
              Kawasaki                     4,889,666                    Dec.  26, 1989                                      

                                                                                                                           
                                                   THE REJECTIONS                                                           
                                                                                                                           

              Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                                    

              being unpatentable over Kawasaki.                                                                             

              Claims 10 through 14, and 16 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                        

              §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Edge.                                                  

                                                                                                                           
                                                      OPINION                                                               

              We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and                               

              the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejections of claims 1 through 4, 6                        

              through 14 and 16 through 21 are not  well founded.  Accordingly, we reverse these                            

              rejections.                                                                                                   









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007