Appeal No. 2005-2287
Application No. 09/767,588
the “acute” angle to in the claim, and the examiner appears
correct in contending that the “outside” angle of the sealing
material in Nakanowatari is, indeed, “acute” even if, as
appellants contend, the inside angle is greater than 90 degrees,
we agree that the claimed “acute angle” is taught by
Nakanowatari. Therefore, appellants’ argument that the
references do not teach bending the sealing material at an acute
angle is not persuasive.
Since appellants offer no argument against the propriety of
making the combination of Saito and Nakanowatari, we accept the
examiner’s reasoning and we sustain the rejection of claim 6, as
well as claims 8, 18, and 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since appellants make no separate, additional arguments
against any other claim, we will also sustain the rejections of
claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 9,
17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,
10, 11, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007