Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
It would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Stow and Tollefson to
utilize and amine-terminated silane layer of coupling agent.
Summary of Decision
Rejection (A), stating that Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by, and alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Thomson is reversed.
Rejection (B), stating that Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by, and alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Pleuddemann or Hahn is reversed.
Rejection (C), stating that Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Iliou in view of Thomson is affirmed.
Rejection (D), stating that Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Iliou in view of either Pleuddemann or Hahn is affirmed.
Rejection (E), stating that Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bruder in view of Thomson is affirmed.
Rejection (F), stating that Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Bruder in view of either Pleuddemann or Hahn is affirmed.
Rejection (G), stating that Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Thomson in view of Hahn is reversed.
Rejection (H), stating that Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Iliou in view of Thomson further in view of Hahn is affirmed.
27
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007