Appeal No. 97-2540 Page 3
Application No. 08/339,558
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a method of recycling.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 23, which appears in the appendix to the
appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Papaianni 4,729,489 March 8, 1988
Dziersk et al. (Dziersk) 5,086,917 Feb. 11, 1992
Claims 23 through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Papaianni in view of Dziersk.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
October 15, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No.
13, filed July 3, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
November 29, 1996) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007