Appeal No. 2002-1224
Application No. 09/266,927
this generic “sponge” disclosure of Tollin and Edwards to satisfy
the natural sponge requirement of the here rejected claims.
As for the section 102 rejection of claim 28 based on
Sewell, the appellant’s sole “argument” is that “Sewell does not
describe use of a natural sponge” (brief, page 11) and that
“[c]laim 28 cannot be anticipated by Sewell because Sewell does
not teach nor suggest [sic] the use of a cross section of a
sponge or a natural sponge” (reply brief, page 3). As properly
explained by the examiner in her answer, “[t]his argument is
deemed moot because claim 28 does not require a natural sponge
but [rather] a paint applying medium including chamois leather”
(answer, page 8).
For the above stated reasons and the reasons expressed in
the answer, we will sustain each of the section 102 rejections
respectively based upon the Tollin, Edwards and Sewell
references.
Regarding the section 103 rejection, the examiner states
that:
Hagen fails to teach or suggest [sic] the use of a
natural sponge, however, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a natural
sponge as the paint applying medium since natural
sponge has similar characteristics of the polyurethane
foam such as being of an open cell construction and
being capable of receiving and holding large quantities
of the paint [answer, page 6].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007