Appeal 2007-1459
Application 10/204,413
Obviousness
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10-12, which depend from
claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wildhaber
because, as we found and discussed above, Wildhaber does not disclose a
tooth surface which is an involute helicoid as is recited in claim 8.
In regard to the rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Litvin, the Appellant has relied on the arguments
made in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Litvin. Therefore, we will sustain this rejection for the same reasons
discussed above in regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
CONCLUSION/ORDER
In summary:
The Examiner’s rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, are not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Wildhaber and of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wildhaber are not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Litvin and of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Litvin are sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013