Appeal No. 1999-2809
Application No. 08/155,946
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 55-58, 60-88, 99, 101-103, 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blodee in view of Kennedy and
Rosling.
With regard to the rejection of claim 59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blodee, Kennedy and Rosling
as applied to claim 55 and further in view of Wilkins, we note
that claim 59 depends from claim 55 and adds the limitation that
the reinforcing or strengthening element comprises paper. While
Wilkins teaches honeycomb material formed of paper (col. 1, lines
46-50), we find nothing in Wilkins which overcomes the failings
of the basic combination of Blodee, Kennedy and Rosling as we
pointed out above. Thus, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of this claim for at least the reasons discussed above
with regard to claim 55.
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007