Appeal No. 2003-1337
Serial No. 08/480,411
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so much of the
claimed invention as Pray shows. Hence, the declaration has
removed Pray as a reference as to the variable pick count
limitation of the appellants’ claims 2, 7, 9, 12, 33-35 and 37.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Waddell in view of Pray.
Claims 1, 3-6, 29-32 and 36
The examiner does not rely upon the disclosure by Pray which
is unrelated to variable pick count for any teaching which
remedies the deficiency in Waddell as to claims 1, 3-6, 29-32
and 36. Also, the examiner has not established that Waddell
discloses each limitation of independent claims 1 and 32, as
discussed above regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
and has not provided any explanation as to how Waddell and Pray
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
the claim limitations which are not disclosed by Waddell. Hence,
we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1,
claims 3-6 and 36 which depend directly or indirectly therefrom,
and claim 32.
Independent claim 29 and claims 30 and 31 which depend
therefrom require that the inner, second and outer layers are
cured resin layers. As discussed above regarding the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Waddell’s layers are thermoplastic.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007