Appeal No. 2004-1099
Application No. 09/868,911
(3) claims 23 and 25 stand rejected over the references
applied in rejection (1) further in view of Bauer (Answer, page 6);
(4) claims 24 and 26 stand rejected over the references
applied in rejection (2) further in view of Bauer (Answer, page 7);
(5) claims 15 and 18-19 stand rejected over Derwent ‘045A in
view of JP ‘118 (Answer, page 7);
(6) claims 16-17 and 21-22 stand rejected over the references
applied in rejection (5) further in view of JP ‘971 (Answer, page
8);
(7) claims 23 and 25 stand rejected over the references
applied in rejection (5) further in view of Bauer (Answer, page 9);
and
(8) claims 24 and 26 stand rejected over the references
applied in rejection (5) further in view of JP ‘971 and Bauer
(Answer, page 10).
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
With respect to rejection (1) which includes independent
claims 15 and 18, the examiner finds that JP ‘811 teaches the basic
claimed apparatus and process for forming a linear groove in an air
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007