Appeal No. 2003-0639
Application No. 09/839,766
in a second zone comprising the narrow edge of the corrugated
sheet.
Appealed claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Mantel in view of German '944, or
German '944 in view of Mantel. Also, the appealed claims stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mantel
in view of Nonnenmann or, in the alternative, over Nonnenmann in
view of Mantel.
Appellant submits at page 6 of the Brief that "claims 1
and 2 stand or fall together for purposes of this appeal."
Accordingly, claim 2 stands or falls together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Inasmuch as we fully
concur with the reasoning set forth by the examiner, as well as
his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by appellant, we
will sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth
in the Answer, which we incorporate herein. We add the following
for emphasis only.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007