Appeal No. 2001-2320
Application 09/097,295
4 in the final rejection) that each of Parsons and Steenstrup
responds to all of the limitations in independent claim 1 except
for the one requiring the groove in the first section limb to be
made by means of a microstructure-changing material deformation.
In this regard, Parsons does not indicate how the grooves are
made in its first section limb (the metal base member), and
Steenstrup discloses that the grooves or slots 16 in its first
metal limb (strip of material 15) are made by cutting.
Similarly, the examiner has determined that each of Parsons and
Steenstrup responds to all of the limitations in independent
claims 26 and 30 except for the one in claim 26 requiring the
groove in the first section limb to be made by means of a
microstructure-changing, non-cutting material deformation and the
one in claim 30 requiring the groove in the first section limb to
be made by means of a ram-striking process.
The appellant’s contention (see, for example, pages 7 and 9
in the main brief and page 2 in the reply brief) that Parsons and
Steenstrup also lack response to the limitations in claims 1, 26
and 30 requiring the flow limit of the first section limb
material to be exceeded is not well taken. The examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007