Appeal No. 2001-2609 Page 6
Application No. 09/040,798
by known methods such as for example cast molding, injection molding or reaction
injection molding." (Emphasis ours).
In view of the above-noted teachings of Newcomb, the examiner should
(1) determine if any of the pending claims are anticipated by Newcomb; and
(2) determine if any of the pending claims would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of
Newcomb combined with the any of the teachings of the other prior art that is of record in
this application (e.g., Melvin and Cavallaro).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In addition, this application has been remanded to the
examiner for further consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007