Appeal No. 1999-0705 Page 3
Application No. 08/129,615
2. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matthews in view of Donaldson, as applied above, and further in view of O'Donnell.
3. Claims 17, 19 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matthews in view of Donaldson, as applied to claims 1, 6, 15, 16, 25, 26, 28-30, 32, 33 and
35 above, and further in view of Cole.
4. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matthews in view of Donaldson and Cole, as applied to claims 17, 19 and 22 above, and
further in view of O'Donnell.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 25) and the answer (Paper No. 26) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
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.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a pair of generally spaced apart webs, "meeting
in a common line, forming a generally inverted, smoothly contoured and curved, U-shaped
groove tile cut line therebetween." Similarly, independent claims 15, 17, 25, 29, 30 and 35
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007