Appeal No. 1999-0660
Application No. 08/312,406
The claimed invention relates to a “formable plastic product” (claim 1, line 1)2
having an outer tubular plastic sheath (12) and a bendable or deformable forming
member (15) received in the internal passageway defined by the sheath. As disclosed, the
forming member is made from a material such as hanger wire (see page 10 of appellant’s
specification) to retain its bent or deformed shape. The sheath is flexible to conform to
the bent or deformed shape of the forming member.
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellant’s brief.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness in support of his rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
§ 103(a):
Killop et al. (Killop) 4,453,353 Jun. 12, 1984
Quigley 5,437,899 Aug. 01, 1995
The grounds of rejection are as follows:3
1. Claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Quigley.
2. Claims 1, 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quigley.
3. Claims 1 through 9 additionally stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Killop.4
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for details of these rejections.
2 It is misdescriptive to recite that the claimed product is a “plastic product” because all of the parts of the
product are not made from plastic.
3 With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections made in the final office action (Paper No. 7), the rejection
of the appealed claims under the first paragraph of § 112 has been withdrawn (see the advisory office
action mailed August 28, 1996) and the rejection of the appealed claims under the second paragraph of
§ 112 has also been withdrawn (see the answer mailed April 1, 1997).
4 This is a new ground of rejection introduced in the examiner’s answer of April 1, 1997.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007