Appeal No. 1996-3939
Application 08/295,635
urge that Lilley describes such a construction. Rather, the examiner's position is that “the
claims only require that individual strands of the claim net be extruded strands ... .”
(Examiner's Answer, page 8). This is incorrect. As set forth above, the claims on appeal
are directed to “extruded netting.” The examiner has not taken this portion of the claimed
subject matter into account in rejecting the claims on the basis of Lilley. Accordingly, we
reverse all rejections pending which are based upon Lilley.
The net described in Madsen does contain strands which are bonded. See, e.g.,
the netting illustrated in Figures 10 and 11 of Madsen and the accompanying description
ins the specification of that patent. Appellants argue at page 7 of the Appeal Brief that
Madsen does not contain integral joints and points to column 2, lines 43-51 of the
reference in support. That portion of the reference only indicates that “in a preferred
embodiment” the filaments may be embedded in slipping relation with the matrix material.
Clearly, in expressing a “preference” for a slipping relationship, Madsen is also disclosing
a non-slipping relationship which meets the terms of claim 1 on appeal.
Since appellants have argued the claims rejected on the basis of Madsen together
as a group, and we have determined that claim 1 is anticipated by Madsen, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 13 as anticipated by Madsen.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007