Appeal No. 1999-0510
Application No. 08/728,787
In considering the rejection of claims 17 to 20, we will
read claim 17 as though "first and second" in line 10 read --
third and fourth--.
The basis of the rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6
of the examiner’s answer, and need not be repeated here.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in the appellant’s brief and reply brief,
and in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the rejection
is not well taken.
Claims 17 to 20 are drawn to a method, and even if Mock
and Santi were combined as proposed by the examiner, the
claimed method would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill. Mock appears to disclose only first and second layers
of articles 25 with a "separator device" (basket 7) between
them, not loading multiple layers as claimed. Also, Mock as
modified by Santi would not result in a separator device
"sandwiched" between layers of articles, nor a separator
device which is flexible and conforms to the thickness of the
layers of articles "as it is folded across the articles."
Rejection (2) therefore will not be sustained as to
claims 17 to 20.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007