Appeal No. 2001-0314
Application No. 09/102,677
Claims 3, 8 through 10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Battle in view of
Tall and Lohse.
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Battle in view of Tall, Lohse and
Chiang.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 6 and 10) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 9) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.3
DISCUSSION
Battle, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
multi-layer, water-proof, unitary container for protecting a
vehicle from flood water. The multi-layer construction
consists of an outer layer 62 of a flexible rubber-base
3In the final rejection (Paper No. 4), claims 3, 4, 15
and 16 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite. The examiner has since withdrawn this
rejection in view of the amendment of claim 15 subsequent to
final rejection (see page 3 in the answer).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007