Appeal No. 1999-1713
Application No. 08/716,037
material through the openings in the stencil and wherein the
compression head cap comprises front and back blades;
(b) placing the compression head cap in substantially flush
union with the stencil having openings therein; and
(c) applying pressure against the viscous material
sufficient to force it from the housing via the compression head
cap so that pressure in the contained pressurized environment
forces the viscous material through the openings of the stencil.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Schoenthaler et al. 4,622,239 Nov. 11, 1986
(Schoenthaler)
Billow et al. 5,234,330 Aug. 10, 1993
(Billow)
Appealed claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Schoenthaler. Claims 21-24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Schoenthaler in view of Billow.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections. In essence, we concur with the reasoning set forth
by appellants in support of the legal conclusion that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
We agree with appellants that Schoenthaler does not teach or
suggest applying pressure against a viscous material that is
contained in a pressurized environment which forces the viscous
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007