Appeal No. 2002-2132
Application 09/124,907
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 23 as being unpatentable over
Duckett in view of Neal.
Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 1 and additionally
requires “a hook-shaped fastening device operable to attach said
leading edge [of the shell member] to said cylinder.” The
examiner, finding that Duckett meets all of the limitations in
the claim except for the recitation of the hook-shaped fastening
device (see page 8 in the answer), concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
Duckett with such a device in view of Neal (see page 9 in the
answer).
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s assessment of
Neal or related conclusion that it would have been obvious to
modify the Duckett device in view of Neal to include a hook-
shaped fastening device of the sort required by claim 23. The
appellant does contend (see pages 9 through 13, 21 and 22 in the
main brief and pages 2 and 3 in the reply brief), however, that
the rejection of claim 23 is unsound because the combined
teachings of the references, and particularly those of Duckett,
do not respond to the limitations in the claim requiring “a gap”
between the leading and trailing edges of the shell member and a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007