Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
mass to the suspension of Hinlein based on Budde and in view of
the common knowledge of the artisan [answer, pages 9-10].
With respect to claims 17 and 18, since these claims
depend from improperly rejected claim 16, and since Budde does
not overcome the fundamental deficiencies of Hinlein noted above,
we do not sustain this rejection of claims 17 and 18. With
respect to claims 9 and 11, these claims depend from claims whose
rejection was sustained above. As noted above, the measurement
step is not relevant to the product recited in claim 1. The
question is whether it would have been obvious to the artisan to
apply the teachings of reduced mass areas using perforated punch-
outs as taught by Budde with the suspension of Hinlein. We agree
with the examiner that the broad recitation of punch-out areas in
a suspension would have been obvious to the artisan based on the
additional teachings of Budde. Therefore, we sustain this
rejection of claims 9 and 11.
In summary, we have not sustained the rejection of claim
10 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection
of claims 1-8, 10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is sustained
with respect to claims 1-8, 10 and 12, but is not sustained with
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007