Appeal No. 96-2810
Application 08/017,086
their method of producing glazed sanitary ceramic articles
appear to be the same or substantially identical to articles
produced by a method Norris describes. In light of
appellants’ statements in the specification, we find that
there is no patentable distinction between many articles
produced by the method Norris describes and articles produced
by the process appellants claim. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of the products of Claim 9 made by the
processes of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as drawn to
products made by a process Norris describes.
Conclusion
1. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of
Norris and Lo.
2. We affirm the examiner’s rejection of Claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Norris.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007