Appeal No. 94-2616
Application 07/760,180
Jen et al. (Jen) 5,069,820 Dec. 3, 1991
(filed Aug. 7, 1987)
Elsenbaumer 5,160,457 Nov. 3, 1992
(filed Mar. 1, 1989)
MacDiarmid et al. 5,177,187 Jan. 5, 1993
(MacDiarmid) (parent filed Feb. 3, 1989)
Appellant’s disclosure of prior art on page 1, lines 15-18, of
the specification.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable
over MacDiarmid in view of Elsenbaumer, Jen and the appellant’s
disclosure of prior art in lines 15 through 18 on page 1 of the
subject specification and alternatively as being unpatentable
over the appellant’s aforementioned disclosure in view of
Elsenbaumer and Jen.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
We cannot sustain either of these rejections.
As correctly argued by the appellant throughout prosecution
of the application including this appeal, the prior art applied
by the examiner contains no teaching or suggestion concerning the
here claimed feature of extruding the solution “through an air
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007