Ex Parte MAKITA et al - Page 2



              Appeal No. 2001-1286                                                                 Page 2               
              Application No. 09/263,795                                                                                

                     The examiner relies on the following prior art reference:                                          
              Shono et al. (Shono)               5,130,136                   Jul. 14, 1992                              


                                                     The Rejection                                                      
                     Claims 1 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as  unpatentable                       
              over Shono.                                                                                               


                                                     Deliberations                                                      
                     Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the                        
              following materials:  (1)  the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;              
              (2)  applicants’ Brief (Paper No. 9);  (3)  the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 10); and                     
              (4)  the above-cited prior art reference.                                                                 
                     On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse                   
              the examiner’s rejection.                                                                                 


                                                      Discussion                                                        
                     Initially, we note that an oral hearing had been scheduled in this appeal for                      
              April 9, 2002.  On reflection, however, this merits panel decided that a hearing was not                  
              necessary and so notified the applicants (Paper No. 14).  See 37 CFR § 1.194(c).                          


                     Each independent claim on appeal requires “a non-porous round polyethylene                         
              powder.”  Having reviewed the Shono Patent in its entirety, we find that Shono does not                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007