Appeal No. 94-3812
Application 07/857,701
Dessauer.
Notwithstanding our affirmance of the prior art
rejections, we have considered appellant's separate arguments
for patentability at pages 19 and 20 of his brief. We agree
with appellant that neither the plumbing fixture of claim 4
nor the metallized surface of an adhesive tape of claim 5 is
either taught or fairly suggested by the prior art on which
the examiner has relied. Accordingly, the rejections of8
claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. We do not
find persuasive, however, appellant's argument concerning the
loading level of colloidal silica in claim 11, 14 and 16. We
find the prior art teaches broad levels of addition which
encompass the amount claimed in claims 11 and 16. Claim 14,
however, ultimately depends from claim 3 which depends from
claim 1 and does not recite the higher level of colloidal
silica argued as a patentable distinction.
Having concluded that the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the appealed subject
matter, it is necessary for us to consider appellants'
It is not clear from this record that a prior art8
search in the plumbing fixtures and metallized adhesive
tape art has been made by the examiner.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007