Appeal No. 1997-1491
Application No. 08/478,167
movement than the more rigid bindered fibers, (2) the use of
substantially long fibers.
Appealed claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 stand rejected under 37
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saborsky. In
addition, the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as follows:
(1) claims 6, 8-13, 15 and 35 over Saborsky in view of
Sens,
(2) claims 14-16, 19-25, 35 and 36 over Sens in view of
Saborsky,
(3) claim 18 over Sens in view of Saborsky, and
(4) claim 5 over Saborsky in view of Irwin.
Appellants submit at page 5 of the brief that, with
respect to the examiner's § 102 rejection over Saborsky,
"claims 3-5 and 7 will stand or fall with claim 1." Also,
appellants' have not set forth separate arguments for appealed
claims 8, 11-14 and 19-24.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007