Appeal No. 1998-0215
Application No. 08/052,671
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions. As a result of this review, we affirm only the
following examiner’s rejections:
1) The rejection of claims 1 through 3 under § 102(b) as
anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over, the disclosure of Pedlow; and
2) The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Yoshimi. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
REJECTION BASED ON PEDLOW
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined
by claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
relies on the disclosure of Pedlow. Appellant acknowledges
(Brief, page 5) that:
The Pedlow tape includes a fabric base sheet 102 which
may be woven glass (Col. 6, line 26). This woven glass
sheet 102 has a resinous base flexible coating 104
applied thereto. The resinous base coating is a
thermoplastic which may be fluid at ambient temperatures
(Col. 2, lines 67-68); or it may be solid at ambient
temperatures and plasticized to melt at temperatures
below about 300 degrees C (Col[.] 3, lines 1-2). The
thermoplastic coating has incorporated therein a high
melting point fiber substance. The thermoplastic coating
also has incorporated therein intumescing or heat
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007