Appeal No. 2003-1796 Page 9
Application No. 09/513,563
Claims 9 and 10
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest a containment
wrap comprising an adhesive substrate coat and glass fiber material overlaying the
adhesive substrate. We agree. It is our determination that even if it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified Dunbar and Rudoi in the manner set forth by the examiner in the rejection
before us in this appeal, such would not result in the claimed invention since such would
not result in a containment wrap comprising an adhesive substrate coat and glass fiber
material overlaying the adhesive substrate. Thus, the examiner has not established the
obviousness of the subject matter of claims 9 and 10. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007