Appeal No. 96-3465
Application No. 07/848,856
surface formed in the surface of the drum. The method recited in
claim 15 requires that a heating element be inserted in a gap
created between overlapping outer and inner material layers of a
sheet of material. In Colombo, Tumminia and Young the layered
material is sealed along its adjacent edges, not on opposite
edges of the same section of material as required by the claimed
method. Therefore, we agree with appellants that the cited
references, either taken alone or in combination, fail to teach
or suggest the method recited in claim 15.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as lacking antecedent basis for the phrase “said gap”
(Answer, pp. 7-8).
According to appellants (Brief, pp. 9-10):
During the preparation of this brief, the
Applicant/Appellant discovered that Claim 17 is
erroneously dependent on Claim 2 and consequently lacks
an antecedent for “said gap.” Claim 17 should be
dependent on Claim 16. Upon the successful resolution
of this appeal, the appropriate amendment will be made
to Claim 17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007