Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
depth of a surface of the block from the tapered top end toward an
opposite end of the block.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Europe ‘332 627,332 Dec. 7, 1994
Europe ‘718 705,718 Apr. 10, 1996
Japan ‘025 5-3190251 Dec. 3, 1993
Japan ‘215 6-402151 Feb. 15, 1994
Europe ‘685 688,685 Dec. 27, 1995
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over EP ‘332 in view of EP ‘718
and JP ‘025 and optionally either EP ‘685 or JP ‘215.2
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
Appellant and by the Examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
1 Our understanding of these references is geared from the
English language translations thereof which are of record.
2 On page 4 of the brief, the Appellant indicates that the
appealed claims are grouped together and correspondingly that the
patentability of all claims can be assessed by considering the
patentability of the broadest claim, namely, independent claim 1.
It follows that, in our disposition of this appeal, we will focus
on appealed independent claim 1. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1999).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007