Appeal 2007-4189
Application 10/164,986
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Harvey US 5,887,733 Mar. 30, 1999
Tolles US 6,036,587 Mar. 14, 2000
Clark US 6,088,985 Jul. 18, 2000
Flach US 6,537,625 B2 Mar. 25, 2003
Claims 1-9, 11, and 21-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1-7, and 11 stand rejected over Appellants' admitted prior art
(AAPA) in view of Tolles, Flach, and Clark.
II. Claims 8-9 stand rejected over AAPA, Tolles, Flach, Clark, and Harvey.
III. Claims 21-25 stand rejected over AAPA and Tolles.
IV. Claims 26-27 stand rejected over AAPA, Tolles, and Harvey.
V. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected over AAPA in view of Tolles, Flach,
and Clark.
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11. However, we
AFFIRM the rejections of 21-29.
Claims 1-9 and 111
Claim 1 specifies that dowel pins connecting said first and second ring
together are formed of injection molded plastic. The Examiner
acknowledges that AAPA and Tolles do not describe dowels formed from
injection molded plastic (Answer 4). The Examiner asserts that Flach and
Clark describe fiber reinforced plastic dowels. The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to use fiber reinforced plastic dowels for their
1 We will limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013