Appeal No. 2002-1969
Application No. 09/665,907
thereby forms around the sleeve or jacket creating a secure
embedment of the same in the lead body as the latter cools.
Thus, even if Cordell and Wrege were to be combined in the manner
urged by the examiner, the result would not be a method like that
set forth in appellant's claims 1 and 4 through 8 on appeal.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
which would have been fairly derived from Cordell and Wrege would
not have made the subject matter as a whole of independent claim
1 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellant's invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner's rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
addition, we observe that it follows from the above determination
that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4 through 8 on
the basis of the combined teachings of Cordell and Wrege also
will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 2 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cordell,
Wrege and Root. We have reviewed the added reference to Root,
but find nothing therein which overcomes or provides for the
deficiencies we have noted above with regard to the basic
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007