Appeal No. 2000-0464
Application No. 09/023,198
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Glomb or,
alternatively, over Glomb alone.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed September 14, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 6, 1999) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 14, filed November 12, 1999) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 8.
The examiner (Answer, page 3) admits that AAPA does not
include a hollow groove around the base of the guide rib, as
recited in independent claims 1 and 4. To remedy this
deficiency, the examiner turns to Glomb. The examiner asserts
(Answer, page 3) that it would have been obvious to modify
AAPA "by having a hollow groove portion around a base portion
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007