Appeal No. 2002-0049 Page 18
Application No. 09/317,538
taught or suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, we note that Abe does not
machine (i.e., chamfer) any outer edge section and that the teachings of Dombrowski
would not have suggested, absent the use of impermissible hindsight, machining any
outer edge section of Abe's tool (i.e., the female die plate 110).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to 4 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007