Appeal No. 1997-0540
Application No. 08/209,847
(e) drying the mat to produce the ceramic
insulation.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Ardary et al. (Ardary) 3,702,279 Nov. 07, 1972
Thompson 4,632,944 Dec. 30, 1986
Bendig 5,041,321 Aug. 20, 1991
Lespade et al. (Lespade) 5,126,087 Jun. 30, 1992
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ardary in view of Lespade or
Bendig and Thompson.1
For a complete exposition of the respective viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejection, we refer to the Brief filed August 5,
1996 and Reply Brief as well as to the Answer for a complete
exposition thereof.
1Although the appellants have indicated that each of the
appealed claims should be separately considered (see page 6 of
the Brief), only claims 9, 11 and 12 have been separately
argued
within a reasonable specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528; Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d
1016, 1018; and 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1995).
Accordingly, in our disposition of this appeal, we will
separately consider only claims 9, 11 and 12.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007