Ex parte NADEL et al. - Page 2




                   Appeal No. 1998-2028                                                                                               Page 2                        
                   Application No. 08/365584                                                                                                                        


                                                                      BACKGROUND                                                                                    
                            The appellants’ invention relates to a figurine having illuminatable and                                                                
                   nonilluminatable fibers.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading                                                        
                   of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellants’ Brief.                                                                    
                            The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                                         
                   appealed claims are:                                                                                                                             
                   Katzman et al. (Katzman)                                  4,626,225                             Dec.   2, 1986                                   
                   Cocca                                                     4,998,186                             Mar.   5, 1991                                   
                   Osborne et al. (Osborne)                                  5,277,644                             Jan. 11, 1994                                    
                   Konta et al. (Konta)                                      5,288,259                             Feb. 22, 1994                                    
                            The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C.  103:1                                                                                  
                   (1)  Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 on the basis of Konta and Cocca.                                                                                
                   (2)  Claims 5 and 11 on the basis of Konta, Cocca and Katzman.                                                                                   
                   (3)  Claim 9 on the basis of Konta, Cocca and Osborne.                                                                                           
                            Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                                                       
                   appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper                                                          
                   No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief                                                     
                   (Paper No. 19) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                                                       



                            1A rejection of claims 1 and 4-12 under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, as                                                           
                   being indefinite, was overcome by an amendment filed after the final rejection (see Papers                                                       
                   no. 8 and 10).                                                                                                                                   







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007