Appeal No. 2006-0520 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/303,385
rather separated by a distance 466 depicted in Figure 45 (col. 12, lines 32 to 36) and
that the upper and lower shells 112 and 114 of Figure 20 do not constrain more than 50
percent of the height of spacer 116 (col.9, lines 8 to 11).
In addition, we agree with the appellant that the examiner has not established
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of the references. Contrary to the examiner’s assertion, neither reference
discloses projections configured to impinge if subjected to excessive force.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claim 14 and claims 15 to 23 dependent thereon.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007