Appeal No. 1997-0566
Application No. 08/344,345
which patentably distinguish over Sekar's method as explained
above, the ultimate products formed by these respective
methods are indistinguishable from Sekar's product.
Concerning the appealed product claims, it appears to be the
appellants' position that the paint roller product of these
claims may differ from the paint roller product of Sekar "in
the case of a manufacturing malfunctioning. . ." (brief, page
16). This position is not only speculative, but is based upon
features to which the claims under review are not limited and
thus cannot be regarded as well founded.
Finally, the apparatus defined by appealed claim 23 is
indistinguishable from the apparatus disclosed by Sekar.
According to the appellants, "[n]one of Sekar, Grodberg et al
nor Morrison disclose apparatus 'for producing a structurally
integral composite structure consisting of an adhesive free
self-sustaining paint roller core' (emphasis ours), and hence
the cited references whether viewed individually or in any
combination do not disclose or suggest the claimed combination
of features." (Brief, page 17). We perceive no merit in the
appellants' view of this matter. Specifically, the appellants
are incorrect in their apparent belief that Sekar's apparatus
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007