Appeal No. 2002-1749
Application No. 09/395,270
For this reason, we shall not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 based on Shaw. We also shall not
sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 5 and 10 based on
Shaw in view of Wyman, or the Section 103 rejection of claim
9 based on Shaw in view of Murphy, since, for the reasons stated
above, Shaw’s underlay cannot be said to be “dimensionally
stable,” and the examiner does not propose that it would have
been obvious to modify Shaw such that the underlay thereof is a
“dimensionally stable” material.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1-8 as being unpatentable over Wyman
in view of SIGA is affirmed.
All other rejections are reversed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007