Appeal No. 2001-2199 Page 3
Application No. 08/754,462
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper
No. 41, mailed March 26, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 40, filed January 25, 2001) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
2
declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 of Edward A. Janousek (the Janousek declaration)
and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon
evaluation of the Janousek declaration, it is our conclusion that the Janousek declaration
establishes a reduction to practice prior to the effective date of PPG '913 (i.e., September
2, 1993). Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 18, 19 and 21
to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The Janousek declaration in paragraphs 3 to 10 sets forth the evidence relied upon
to establish a reduction to practice of the claimed invention in the United States prior to the
effective date of PPG '913 (i.e., September 2, 1993). Page 4 of the Certainteed
Filed August 16, 1999, Paper No. 28.2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007