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.
REVERSED
Lawrence J. Staab )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007