Appeal No. 1998-0999
Application No. 08/452,737
REJECTION
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1, 3, 10, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Limina;
2) Claims 1 through 5, 10, 12 and 21 through 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Limina and Brown; and
3) Claims 1 through 13 and 21 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Ashby and
Brown.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the claims, specification,
drawings and applied prior art, including the arguments
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of
their respective positions, we determine that the
aforementioned
§ § 102(e) and 103 rejections are not well founded.
Initially, we determine that the examiner has not
properly considered the preambular limitation “placemat”
recited in claim 1. Contrary to the examiner's position, we
determine that it gives life and meaning to the invention
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007