Appeal No. 96-3352 Page 4
Application No. 08/129,921
As for Chicopee, the examiner’s answer contains no
explicit explanation as to how or why this reference teaches or
would have suggested the appellants' claimed patterns. Certain
statements in the answer imply that the examiner regards
Chicopee's compressed strips 17 and uncompressed portions 21 as
reading on the bonded regions and unbonded areas required by
appealed claim 11. However, the examiner has proffered no
rationale in support of this view, and we discern none
independently. Moreover, this deficiency of the examiner's
rejection based on Chicopee is not supplied by his rejections
which combine this reference with Hassenboehler and Shimalla.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear to us that none of
the rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal can be
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007