Appeal No. 2001-1454
Application No. 08/412,118
With respect to independent claim 19, appellants argue that the combination of
Plummer and Fry ’848 does not teach or suggest the wire diameter configuration recited
in claim 19. They also argue that Fry ’428 does not overcome the deficiencies in the
basic combination [brief, pages 14-15].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 because the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for reasons
discussed above.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of any of the
independent claims on appeal. Since the rejection of the independent claims is
unsupported by the applied prior art, and since the additionally applied references do
not overcome the deficiencies discussed above, we also do not sustain the examiner’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007