Appeal No. 2006-1220
Application No. 10/457,960
been an obvious design expediency “to protect these elements from damage” (final
rejection, p. 3) is unsupported by the references.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-23 is affirmed
as to claims 1-6, 9-16, 18 and 19 and reversed as to claims 7, 8, 17 and 20-23.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007