Appeal No. 2003-0021
Application No. 08/983,383
present application, it is clear to this panel of the board that
the rejection requires, in effect, a wholesale revision of the
method and underlying structure explicitly taught in the Bruyere
reference, and necessitates following appellant’s teaching,
rather than any suggestions for the noted selective spreader
element and plastic film modifications from the combined prior
art teachings themselves. It is for the above reason that the
rejection of appellant’s independent method claims and dependent
method and structure claims is not sound. Lastly, we note that
the additional references to Buckles and Horner fail to overcome
the deficiencies of the earlier discussed applied prior art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007