Appeal No. 1999-0972
Application 08/724,340
and roof cavities” (specification, page 1). A copy of the
appealed
claims appears in the appendix to the appellants’ brief (Paper
No. 14).
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Sawtell 2,335,968 Dec. 7, 1943
Gay 5,099,629 Mar. 31, 1992
Grant 5,545,453 Aug. 13, 1996
Claims 1 through 6, 9 through 11 and 19 through 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gay.
Claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grant.
Claims 38 through 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawtell in view of Grant.
The examiner’s reasoning in support of these rejections
is set forth in the answer (Paper No. 15).
The appellants’ position that the examiner’s rejections
are unsound is detailed in the brief (Paper No. 14) and is
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007