Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based upon
the prior art evidence before us.
As to claims 25 through 27, which each depend from claim
16, we cannot sustain the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Consistent with the view articulated above relative to claim
8, in particular, it is apparent to us that the Garrett patent
would not have been suggestive of a ratio of maximum width to
length of at least 0.5 when the maximum width was at least
0.600 inch, 0.620 inch, or 0.640 inch, as now claimed in
respective claims 25, 26, and 27.
We turn now to the argument advanced by appellants.
As to the rejection of claims 1 through 7, 15 through 22,
and 24 which we have sustained, the appellants' argument in
the main (pages 7 through 15) and reply briefs has simply not
convinced us that the content of these claims is patentable
over the evidence before us. Appellants' refer to Garrett
(column 3, lines 9 et seq.) as teaching that both width and
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007