Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
Maük’s disclosure of angles in figures 3 and 6 below 45º formed
by twist about the radial axis would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, reducing the circumferential
direction angle in figure 4.
The examiner does not rely upon Katayama or Kleinhoff for
any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Maük.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellant’s claimed
invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007