Appeal No. 1998-1595
Application No. 08/439,912
Scheffelin et al. (Scheffelin)5,448,818 Sep. 12, 1995
(filed Oct. 29, 1993)
Admitted prior art at pages 1 and 2 of the specification.
Claims 15-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Admitted prior art in view of Scheffelin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Dec. 24, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed Oct. 3, 1997) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset we note that the one step injection molding process has been
indicated as allowable by the examiner, but the examiner has rejected the product claims
of the process. Furthermore, we note that the specification as amended at page 9 states
that “[t]he method of the present invention permits the making of cartridges in the same
configuration as cartridges made by the method described with respect to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007