Appeal No. 2000-2229
Application No. 09/126,766
Kalpakjian, S., Manufacturing Engineering and Technology , 3rd
ed., pp. 641-650, 995 (Addison-Wesley 1995)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Steidinger in view of Ohmori and
Schriber.
Claim 4 stands under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Steidinger in view of Ohmori, Schriber and
Hornung.
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Steidinger in view of Ohmori,
Schriber, Von Schriltz and Kalpakjian.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
17) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
7 and 21) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections. 3
DISCUSSION
3 In the final rejection, claim 8 also stood rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The examiner has since
withdrawn this rejection (see the advisory action dated February
9, 2000, Paper No. 12) as a result of the amendment made
subsequent to final rejection (see n.1, supra).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007