Ex parte SOMMERFELDT et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-3264                                                        
          Application 08/501,769                                                      


          1937                                                                        
          Bungay                            2,624,389       Jan.  6,                  
          1953                                                                        
          Evans et al. (Evans)              3,146,485       Sep.  1,                  
          1964                                                                        
          Valimont et al. (Valimont)        4,367,107       Jan.  4,                  
          1983                                                                        
          Nomura (JP ‘217)                   2-308217       Dec. 21,                  
          1990                                                                        
               (Japanese Kokai)                                                       
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                  
          follows: claims 1-4 over Valimont, and claims 1 and 3 over                  
          Stebbins or Evans.  The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103 as follows: claims 1-6 over Valimont in view of Bungay,               
          and claims 1-4 and 7 over JP ‘217 in view of Valimont.                      
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered all of the arguments                      
          advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with                      
          appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well                  
          founded.  Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.                         
               Appellants’ claim 1, which is the sole independent claim,              
          requires laminating the sheeted topfilm to the sheeted                      
          substrate while simultaneously tensioning the sheeted topfilm               


                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007