Ex parte DARR - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 1998-3317                                                                                     Page 2                        
                 Application No. 08/575,347                                                                                                             


                          We REVERSE.                                                                                                                   


                                                                   BACKGROUND                                                                           
                          The appellant's invention relates to a method for making                                                                      
                 a multi-layer blow molded container.  A copy of the claims                                                                             
                 under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's                                                                           
                 brief.     2                                                                                                                           


                          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                                                         
                 Mente                                        4,818,465                                             April 4,                            
                 1989                                                                                                                                   
                 Slat et al. (Slat)                           5,443,766                                             Aug. 22,                            
                 1995                                                                                                                                   



                          Claims 1 and 3 to 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                                                                      
                 as being unpatentable over Slat in view of Mente.                                                                                      


                          Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced                                                                     
                 by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted                                                                            

                          2An error in claim 4 was noted by the examiner on page 2                                                                      
                 of the answer.                                                                                                                         







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007