Appeal No. 2001-0945
Application No. 08/908,129
support of Peterson falls outside the definition of a “flexible
support” as set forth in their specification. We take note of
the fact that aluminum foil is generally very thin, thus expected
to be flexible. The definitions of a flexible support found in
appellants’ specification do not exclude flexible metal supports;
the mention of “e.g.[,] paper or organic resin supports”
(emphasis added) is considered to be merely exemplary.
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in
the examiner’s answer, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
MARC L. CAROFF )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) APPEALS AND
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007