Appeal No. 1999-0822 10
Application No. 08/732,866
utilization between two layers of vulcanized thermoplastic elastomer. We therefore
conclude that this additional thermoplastic layer required by claim 5 is neither disclosed
nor taught by the reference to Bistak. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 5 through 7.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bistak is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bistak is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007