Ex parte FLORIO et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1998-1616                                                        
          Application No. 08/570,633                                                  

          Altenpohl merely engage opposite sides of the foil.                         
          Accordingly, even if Altenpohl’s rolls were provided in Minten              
          as proposed by the examiner, the subject matter of independent              
          claims 1 and 14 would not result.                                           
               In light of the above, we will not sustain the examiner’s              
          rejection of claims 1 and 14, or claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13               
          and 15-20 that depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over                 
          Minten in view of Altenpohl.                                                
               As to the rejection of claims 8, 9, 12 and 21-23 as being              
          unpatentable over Minten in view of Altenpohl, and further in               
          view of Thorn and Burke, the additional references applied in               
          this rejection do not render obvious what we have found to be               
          lacking in Minten and/or Altenpohl.  Therefore, this rejection              
          also will not be sustained.                                                 

               The decision of the examiner is reversed.                              

          Lawrence J. Staab               )                                           
               Administrative Patent Judge     )                                      

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007