Appeal No. 1997-3119
Application No. 08/216,221
being directed to a non-elected invention.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a breathable,
decorative wall covering and to a breathable, decorative wall
covering prepared by a particular process. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claims 1 and 8, copies of which appear in the APPENDIX to the
main brief (Paper No. 15).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Bodrogi 4,804,572 Feb. 14,
1989
Silverstein 5,000,810 Mar. 19,
1991
Rusincovitch et al 5,262,444 Nov. 16,
1993
(Rusincovitch)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 and 3 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over either Silverstein, Bodrogi,
or Rusincovitch.
Claims 8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over either Silverstein, Bodrogi, or
Rusincovitch.
The content of the examiner’s rejections and response to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007