Appeal No. 2004-0190 Page 11
Application No. 09/479,531
Stevens is cited for such a teaching, with the examiner concluding that it would have
been obvious to modify Whitehurst “to have a guide being planar . . . in order to
minimize the cost of forming the guide by not having any in depth penetration portion”
(Answer, page 8).
We refused above to sustain the rejection of claim 26 because Whitehurst lacks
the plurality of guides required by this parent claim. Considering Whitehurst in the light
of Section 103 does not cause us to alter that position. The examiner appears to be
designating base 10 as the planar guide in the Stevens figurine puzzle. Be that as it
may, Stevens also does not appear to disclose a plurality of guides, and therefore fails
to alleviate the deficiency in Whitehurst.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 28 as being anticipated by Sihra is sustained.
None of the other rejections is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007