Appeal No. 2001-2354
Application No. 09/186,687
aforementioned three references simply would not have been
suggestive of the forced fit feature of claim 18.
The sixth rejection4
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 8. This claim
depends from claims the rejection of which we have not sustained.
Further, the applied teachings to Del Monte and Scherer are not
seen to overcome the deficiency of the teachings of Goetz and
Humpolik, as addressed regarding the rejection of claim 1 above.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 through
12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Goetz in view of Humpolik;
sustained the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Goetz in view of Pawlick;
4 As indicated in footnote number 1 above, the statement of
the rejection of claim 8 was apparently inadvertently omitted
from the final rejection of claims 1 through 17. Based upon the
commentary in the answer (page 7), it is clear that the examiner
was not aware of the aforementioned omission.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007