Appeal No. 2001-2589 Page 11
Application No. 09/072,911
scissors with visual indicia indicating the depth of the cut. Be this as it may, Go does
not overcome the deficiencies in the combination of Rotax and Herman. The Section
103 rejection of claim 3 therefore is not sustained.
Claim 4, also rejected on the basis of Rotax, Herman and Go, adds the same
limitation to claim 1. This rejection is not sustained on the basis of the same reasoning
as claim 3.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
sustained.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rotax in view of Herman is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rotax in view of Herman and Go is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007