Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
separate elements. If this application is subject to further prosecution, claim
18 should be amended to make clear that the blade is not a part of the jig.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Edwards and
the rejections of claim 18 as obvious in view of either Yarvise or Thomas,
combined with Werner or Norman. However, we affirm the following
rejections: claim 18 as anticipated by Perrick; claim 18 as obvious in view
of Perrick and Olson; claim 18 as obvious in view of Thomas, Olson, and
Werner or Norman; claim 19 as anticipated by Buddle; and claim 19 as
anticipated by Thomas.
AFFIRMED
lbg
HAMMER & HANF, PC
3125 SPRINGBANK LANE
SUITE G
CHARLOTTE NC 28226
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013