Appeal No. 2002-2050
Application No. 08/973,019
Appellant contends (Request, pages 2-3) that contrary to our
statements at pages 8-9 of our April 16, 2003 decision, the
teachings of Elton '077 relate "to matter that is not necessarily
present as to the glass fiber that is chopped, mixed with resin
and molded or blown as described at column 8, lines 3-9 of Elton
'565." Appellant continues that Mr. Aabo's declaration
establishes that the teachings of Elton '077 relied upon in our
decision are not necessarily present as to the Figure 7 pyrolyzed
glass fiber layers 104 and 110 described in Elton '565. However,
Elton '565 explicitly states that the method of making and
characteristics of the materials used therein are described in
Elton '077 and incorporates those teachings by reference.
Therefore, all of the discussion in Elton '077 relating to the
methods of making and the characteristics of pyrolyzed glass are
necessarily present in the disclosure of Elton '565.
Appellant argues (Request, page 3) that our reliance upon
Elton '077 changes the thrust of the rejection presented by the
examiner and, therefore, constitutes a new ground of rejection in
accordance with In re Kronig, 190 USPQ 425, 427 (CCPA 1976).
However, the thrust of the rejection is still the same: Shildneck
teaches the basic structure, Elton '565 teaches adding layers to
eliminate corona discharge. The only difference is that we have
answered appellant's objections to Elton '565, as explained
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007