Appeal No. 2003-1953 Page 5
Application 09/244,742
The first of these rejections is that claims 4 and 7, which depend from claim 8,
would have been obvious3 in view of Walker. Considering Walker in the light of 35
U.S.C. § 103 does not alter our conclusion that it fails to disclose or teach the pocket
described in independent claim 8. This being the case, Walker fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in dependent
claims 4 and 7, and we will not sustain this rejection.
Claim 6 stands rejected as being obvious in view of Walker and Sands, the latter
being cited for teaching a blade having a second taper. Be that as it may, as we stated
above, Walker fails to disclose or teach the pocket recited in claim 8, from which claim
6 depends through claims 5 and 3, and therefore this rejection cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
None of the three standing rejections is sustained.
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007