Appeal No. 2003-0091
Application No. 09/298,640
as comprising multiple layers. Notwithstanding the appellant’s
general argument to the contrary (see pages 8, 9, 11 and 12 in
the main brief and pages 3 and 4 in the reply brief), Bolton’s
teaching that a laminated safety glass interlayer may be formed
of one or more bonded layers of plastic materials chosen for
their flexibility and rigidity would have provided the artisan
with ample suggestion or motivation to make Schimmelpenningh’s
interlayer of multiple layers for the same purpose, thereby
arriving at the subject matter recited in claim 30. Since the
appellant has not argued separately the patentability of claims
30 through 33, claims 31 through 33 stand or fall with
representative claim 30 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 22 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to
comply with the written description requirement is reversed;
b) to reject claims 22 through 25, 30, 31 and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grolig is reversed;
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007