Appeal No. 1998-2988
Application No. 08/502,560
of reasoning for obviousness. Instead the examiner relies
solely upon the alleged anticipation for obviousness. Since
QWIK-STIK does not anticipate the claims, and we find nothing
in the record that would suggest modifying the reference to
overcome the noted deficiencies, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, and 8.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007