Appeal No. 2006-1252 Page 10
Application No. 10/310,886
point out where the applied references teach or suggest hot-melt equipment. Upon
return of jurisdiction of the application to the primary examiner, if the examiner
remains of the view that these claims are unpatentable over Whitmore in view of
Scherer, the examiner may consider reinstating the rejection of these claims, with
the appropriate authorization, specifically pointing out where the features of these
claims are taught or suggested in the references.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-36 is affirmed
as to claims 1-8 and reversed as to claims 9-36. The examiner’s decision is
AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007