Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
Notwithstanding that appellants have directed that we may
treat claims 18-23 as a single group standing or falling
together, we have elected to consider claims 21-23 separately.
Claims 21 and 23 require that the first and second pieces
comprise a flute on the protruding member and a corresponding
fluted opening in the cavity. Claim 22 requires that the
protruding member and the cavity are complementarily tapered.
Because the reference evidence adduced by the examiner does not
disclose, teach, or suggest these claimed features, we shall not
sustain the standing rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Summary
The rejection of claims 11-23, 43 and 44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11-17, 43 and 44 as being
unpatentable over Moumene in view of Bokros is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 26-33 as being unpatentable over
Goble, the rejection of claims 34-37 as being unpatentable over
Goble in view of Bokros, and the rejection of claims 38-42 as
being unpatentable over Goble in view of Moumene are reversed.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007