Appeal No. 2002-1850
Application 08/288,574
into account the basic highly elastic multi-layer teaching of
Korlatzki. We note that the comparison made by declarant
Langowski (Section 4 and Attachment) did not involve the closest
prior art (the materials of Korlatzki).
Turning now to the anticipation rejection of claims 2 and
26, we are in basic agreement with appellant (main brief, page
27) that the specific properties set forth in these claims cannot
be fairly determined as inherent in the multi-layer casing of
Korlatzki, i.e., there is no reasonable basis for concluding,
with certainty, that the now claimed specific properties are, in
fact, present and an inherent characteristic of the Korlatzki
casing. For the foregoing reason, the anticipation rejection of
claims 2 and 26 is not sound and cannot be sustained.4
The §103(a) rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korlatzki.
4 An obviousness assessment relative to claims 2 and 26 is
not before us.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007