Appeal No. 97-2782 Page 4
Application No. 08/368,993
Claims 27 , 28, 30 through 32, 35 through 38 and 423
through 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bergh.4
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bergh in view of Schmitt-Raiser.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 10, mailed August 2, 1996) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 18, mailed March 17, 1997) for the examiner's
3In the final rejection, claim 27 was included in this
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In the answer, the examiner
lists claim 27 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) but
also mentions claim 27 in the body of the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection (answer, page 4, line 2). Since the answer did not
specifically set forth that it contained a new ground of
rejection, we will treat claim 27 as being rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as set forth in the final rejection.
4We note the following obvious errors in claims 31 and
43. In claim 32, the phrase "said wall panel" should be --
said ceiling panel-- for proper antecedent basis. In claim
43, "corners" (each ocurrence) should be --edges-- for
consistency with the original disclosure. The appellant
should correct these obvious errors as soon as possible.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007