Appeal No. 95-3317
Application No. 07/937,522
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
advanced by the appellant and by the examiner. Upon
evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
that the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
all claims on appeal. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
Considering first the examiner's rejection of claims 12,
13, 19, 20, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nitzsche in view of Vohrer, we are in
substantial agreement with the examiner's position with
respect to the patent to Nitzsche that a protective and heat
insulating covering for a frangible, impact-sensitive article
such as glass tubing is disclosed thereby, with the covering
formed by wrapping the glass tubing with self-adhering
elastomeric materials such as silicone rubbers. Other
and Interferences.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007