Appeal No. 2004-0941
Application No. 09/180,901
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Claim 9
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manent in view of Shindo and
Steiner. It follows that the rejection of claim 13 is likewise
not sustained since it stands or falls with claim 9 as earlier
indicated.3
Claim 9 is drawn to revetment for a water-retaining
structure comprising, inter alia, elements, wherein one
transverse face of each element is made a concave shape and the
other transverse face is made a corresponding convex shape, at
2(...continued)
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3 We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 16
since it stands or falls with claim 9 as specified, supra. We
only add the comment that the Scheiwiller reference does not
overcome the deficiency of the other applied teachings.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007