Appeal No. 1997-0068
Application 07/923,278
application. We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to “a system . . . for manufacture
of three-dimensional objects from computer data using
computer-controlled dispensing of multiple media and selective
material subtraction” (specification, page 1). A copy of the
appealed claims appears in the appendix to the appellants’
main brief (Paper No. 16).
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness is:
Pomerantz et al. (Pomerantz) 5,031,120
Jul. 9, 1991
(filed Dec. 22,
1988)
Claims 24 through 26, 28, 30 through 34 and 36 through 43
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Pomerantz.2
Claims 27, 29 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Pomerantz.
2Pomerantz clearly qualifies as prior art with respect to
the subject matter on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The
appellants have not challenged the examiner’s implicit
determination that this reference also qualifies as prior art
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007