Appeal No. 2004-0941
Application No. 09/180,901
Claim 17
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manent in view of Shindo.5
The rejection of claims 18 and 19 is also not sustained since
these particular claims stand or fall with claim 17 as noted
above.
Independent claim 17 is drawn to an element for a revetment
with the features, inter alia, of two opposing transverse faces,
a first of the transverse faces having a concave shape with a
first radius and a second of the transverse faces having a convex
shape with the first radius, said second transverse face having a
concavity in an apex of the convex shape with a second radius
smaller than the first radius.
Simply stated, it is quite apparent to this panel of the
Board that the teachings of Manent and Shindo, by themselves,
would not have been suggestive of providing a concavity in the
5 We refer to the argument in the reply brief (page 3),
since appellant acknowledges that the argument in the main brief
addressed an old rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007