Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Vinson and Ploger
(I-II), combined in view of Irani , Parran, Gaffar and further3
in view of Henkel and Kanebo. 4
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 16 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or in the alternative
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over de Vries and Hayes,(I-
II). 5
OPINION
2(...continued)
However, in view of the rejection being over Haefele combined with Ploger and
appellants’ concurrence in the Brief, page 5, the rejection is necessarily
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3The Answer, page 10, refers to Irani(‘633). No such Irani patent
exists. We refer to Irani (‘644) as listed in the prior art of record. See
Answer, page 6.
4There are four Henkel patents listed in the prior art of record,
Answer, pages 6 and 7. We have considered each Henkel reference.
5The rejection as stated in both the Answer and the Final Rejection
mailed May 25, 1994 improperly states the statutory grounds of the rejection
using § 103 instead of § 102. However as the rejections are stated in the
alternative, as anticipated by or obvious over, we conclude that the rejection
is made both under §§ 102 and 103. Appellants’ concurrence, Brief, page 4 is
noted.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007