Appeal No. 1997-0566
Application No. 08/344,345
which depend therefrom as being unpatentable over Sekar in
view of Grodberg and Morrison alone or further in view of the
admitted prior art.
Analogously, the prior art applied by the examiner
contains no teaching or suggestion of the appealed claim 7
method feature directed to an adhesive substance being in a
hot, extruded condition in the form of an envelope which
envelopes the paint roller core and which envelope is composed
solely of the adhesive substance. Indeed, we find nothing in
the here-applied references which would have suggested
anything that could be rationally considered an envelope form
adhesive substance of the type defined by appealed claim 7.
Further, the examiner in his answer has not even responded to
the appellants' argument concerning this claim 7 feature. It
follows that we also cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 7 or of claims 8 through 12 which depend
therefrom as being unpatentable over Sekar in view of Grodberg
and Morrison alone or further in view of the admitted prior
art.
We will sustain, however, the examiner's Section 103
rejection of method claims 13 through 18. In our view, these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007