Appeal No. 95-2221
Application No. 07/994,072
(7) Whether the examiner correctly rejected claims
1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Parker in view of Peoples, O'Connor, and Schwan;
(8) Whether the examiner correctly rejected claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parker in view of Peoples,
O'Connor, Schwan, and Serafini;
(9) Whether the examiner correctly rejected claims
19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Parker in
view of Peoples, O'Connor, Schawn, and Adams;
and
(10) Whether the examiner correctly rejected claim
24 under 35 U.S.C. & 103 as unpatentable over Parker in view
of People, O'Connor, Schawn, and Benedick.
We cannot sustain any of the above rejections.
OPINION
With respect to rejection (1), the examiner asserts that
the specification fails to provide written descriptive support
for the amendatory language in appealed claim 1 regarding the
negative limitation that solidification occurs "without
molding under pressure, heat setting, or calendaring." We
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007