Appeal No. 2004-1171
Application No. 09/754,618
In light of the suggestion for a non-cutting shaping process
derived from the Niina reference, as discussed above, the
argument advanced by appellant relative to deficiencies in the
Zernickel document (main brief, pages 12 and 13) does not
convince us that claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 are patentable.
In summary, this panel of the board has sustained each of
the obviousness rejections on appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007