Ex parte DALUISE - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-2275                                                        
          Application No. 08/390,281                                                  

          applying a running track to a substrate which comprises                     
          introducing into a nozzle a first stream comprising a rubber                
          particulate material and separately introducing into the                    
          nozzle a second stream comprising a binder for the particulate              
          material and causing the binder to encapsulate the particulate              
          material and form a first combined stream in the nozzle and                 
          dispensing this combined stream from the nozzle onto the                    
          substrate to form a first surface layer of the running track.               
          Further details of this appealed subject matter are set forth               
          in representative independent claim 1, a copy of which taken                
          from the appellant’s brief is appended to this decision.                    
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Fritz               2,025,974                Dec. 31, 1935                  
          Coke et al. (Coke) 4,420,513            Dec. 13, 1983                       
          Sorathia et al.     5,320,870                Jun. 14, 1994                  
          (Sorathia)                    (filed Aug. 28, 1991)                         
               All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
           103 as being unpatentable over Coke in view of Sorathia and               
          Fritz.                                                                      
               We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer                
          for a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed              
          by the appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted                
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007