Appeal No. 1997-0956
Application No. 08/313,488
a foam.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Ahrens 4,190,697 Feb. 26,
1980
Nishida 4,294,880 Oct. 13,
1981
Debaes et al. (Debaes) 5,116,557 May 26,
1992
Bianchin et al. (Bianchin) 5,223,193 Jun. 29,
1993
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:1
(1) Claims 1 through 12, 14 through 17, 19, 20 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Debaes, Bianchin and Nishida; and 2
(2) Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Debaes, Bianchin, Nishida and Ahrens.
We have carefully evaluated the claims, specification and
1The examiner has withdrawn the § 112 rejections set forth
at pages 2-4 of the final Office action dated May 14, 1996.
See the Advisory Action dated August 9, 1996, paper number 7.
2In view of the amendment after the final Office action
dated May 14, 1996, the examiner has combined the rejections
based on Debaes and Bianchin, and Debaes, Bianchin and
Nishida. See the Advisory Action dated August 9, 1996, paper
number 7.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007