Ex parte BRANDON et al. - Page 3




            Appeal No. 1998-1595                                                                              
            Application No. 08/439,912                                                                        


                   Scheffelin et al. (Scheffelin)5,448,818      Sep. 12, 1995                                 
                                                                (filed Oct. 29, 1993)                         
                   Admitted prior art at pages 1 and 2 of the specification.                                  
                   Claims 15-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable             
            over Admitted prior art in view of Scheffelin.                                                    
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the          
            appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's              
            answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Dec. 24, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of            
            the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed  Oct. 3, 1997) for the          
            appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                               
                                                  OPINION                                                     

                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the        
            appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the             
            respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of         
            our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                              
                   At the outset we note that the one step injection molding process has been                 
            indicated as allowable by the examiner, but the examiner has rejected the product claims          
            of the process.  Furthermore, we note that the specification as amended at page 9 states          
            that “[t]he method of the present invention permits the making of cartridges in the same          
            configuration as cartridges made by the method described with respect to                          

                                                      3                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007