Appeal No. 96-1753
Application 08/063,202
in their Brief against the rejection of claim 1 et al., in which
the order of the two references was reversed.
Method claim 15 stands rejected as being unpatentable over
Moore in view of Ekdahl. This claim first recites providing a
core of first viscous material with a second viscous material
“surrounding” the core, and then goes on to require dispensing
means including shaping means “for shaping only said outer
material” (emphasis added). Neither Moore nor Ekdahl teach such2
a feature. Therefore, they fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of this claim,
and we will not sustain the rejection. Nor, it follows, will we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16 through 21.
Claim 1 also has been rejected as being unpatentable over
Moore in view of Strumor, the latter being cited for its teaching
of dispensing two viscous materials through an aperture which
decoratively shapes the issuing material. For the same reasons
as were expressed above with regard to the rejection based upon
Moore and Ekdahl, we also will sustain this rejection of claim 1.
2We observe that there is no antecedent basis in claim 15
for “said outer material,” although it is clear that this is
intended to refer to the second viscous material which surrounds
the core of first material. This discrepancy in terminology is
worthy of correction.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007