Appeal No. 1999-2727
Application No. 08/809,315
limestone, glass, rubber, textiles and plastics (claim 1) and
methods of applying the adhesive layer of claim 1 to a hockey
stick blade (claims 3-5). A copy of the claims under appeal
is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are the following
Canadian patents:
Saytar 909814 Sep. 12, 1972
Spratt 984420 Feb. 24, 1976
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Spratt.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spratt in view of Saytar.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14) and two prior Office actions (Paper Nos. 7 and 12)1
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
1We remind the examiner that the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 expressly provides that
incorporation by reference in an answer may be made only to a
single other action.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007