Appeal No. 1998-3018
Application 08/457,328
Stotz finds no cure in Booth’s disclosure of the addition of
chemical reagents to inner or filler stock flows. For these
reasons, the examiner’s overall conclusion that the combined
teachings of Beck, Booth and Stotz would have suggested the
subject matter recited in claims 1, 11 and 17 is not well
taken.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 1, 11 and 17, or of claims 3 through
5, 8, 9, 12 through 14, 16, 18 and 19 which depend therefrom,
as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Booth and Stotz.
Inasmuch as Schmaeng, Justus and/or Schacht do not
overcome the above noted deficiencies of the basic Beck-Booth-
Stotz combination, we also shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 6 and 7 as being
unpatentable over Beck in view of Booth, Stotz and Schmaeng or
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 10
and 15 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Booth,
Stotz, Justus and Schacht.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007