Appeal No. 2002-2089
Application No. 09/482,237
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Brueggemann et al. (Brueggemann) 4,237,176 Dec. 2, 1980
Falco 4,867,149 Sep. 19, 1989
Leonard 4,936,411 June 26, 1990
Esler et al. (Esler) Des. 369,655 May 7, 1996
Falco et al. (Falco) 5,809,574 Sep. 22, 1998
Leight 5,811,742 Sep. 22, 1998
Leight et al. (Leight) 6,006,857 Dec. 28, 1999
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 17-19, 22-25, 27 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Falco ‘574
in view of Brueggemann, and the remaining claims on appeal stand
correspondingly rejected over these references in various
combinations with the other prior art listed above.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for a
complete exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the
Appellant and the Examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
The rejections advanced by the Examiner in this appeal cannot
be sustained.
As correctly argued by the Appellant in the brief and reply
brief, the Falco ‘574 and Brueggemann references contained no
teaching or suggestion of forming the “stem member” of Falco ‘574
from a material of the type disclosed by Brueggemann (i.e., a
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007