Appeal No. 2004-1954
Application 09/917,539
hardness values. Hence, it appears that appellants are
arguing limitations that are not recited in the claims.
Hence, we are not convinced by such arguments.
With regard to the rejection that includes a rejection
of claims 19 and 28, on page 13 of the Brief, appellants
set forth the same arguments with regard to the combination
of Sullivan and Cavallaro ‘191. On page 14 of the Brief,
appellants state that the references of Shama, Schenk and
Boehm do not remedy the defect regarding the combination of
Sullivan and Cavallaro ‘191. For the same reasons provided
above with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 18, we also affirm the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 9 through 30.
CONCLUSION
Each of the obviousness rejections is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007