Appeal No. 2005-2098
Application No. 09/810,641
patent at column 2, lines 20-30. As for the examiner’s assertion that appellant has not
addressed any advantage to not having perforations outside the annular zone defined in
claim 1 on appeal, we agree with appellant’s comments set forth on page 2 of the reply
brief.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jöst in view of Marton. Nor will we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2 though 5 and 7 which are dependent from claim
1.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jöst in view of Marton and Gutknecht, we have reviewed the patent
to Gutknecht, but find nothing therein which makes up for or otherwise overcomes the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007