Appeal 2006-2308
Application 10/343,154
Specification.5 Moreover, we are in agreement with Appellant that the 9, ll.
28-36 (indicating a preference for orienting the shank “in an acute angular
relation” relative to the plane of the substrate).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 11, 14-16, 18-20 and
22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The remaining claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hammer in view of Thomas when further considered in
view of Reed (as to claims 12 and 13), Tuma (as to claim 17) and Nestegard
(as to claim 21). The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Hammer
and Thomas as discussed in connection with the rejection of independent
claim 11, citing the additional references for a showing of features recited in
5 “The object of the invention is to further improve the known process such
that good ejection of the interlocking means after the shaping process is
achieved, even at very high production rates, and that the interlocking means
produced in this way leads to closing parts which adhere well and which can
be joined to one another.” (Spec., 3).
“This continuous transition along the convex path then leads essentially to
unimpeded mold removal process without the danger of the head parts
tearing off from their assigned stem part over sharp-edged shape
transitions.” (Spec., 4).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007