Appeal No. 03-0877 Page 2
Application No. 09/601,884
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a laminar flow control system. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 9,
which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Lachmann 2,742,247 Apr. 17, 1956
Dannenberg 3,128,973 Apr. 14, 1964
Parikh et al. (Parikh) 5,772,156 Jun. 30, 1998
Healey 5,806,796 Sep. 15, 1998
Claims 7, 9, 12-15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Parikh.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Parikh in view of Dannenberg.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Parikh in view of Lachmann.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Parikh in view of Healey.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 15) and the final rejection (Paper No. 10) for the examiner's complete
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007