Appeal No. 2002-1023 Page 2
Application No. 09/387,399
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a machine for making a cushioning product.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 7,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Wright et al. (Wright) 4,355,437 Oct. 26, 1982
Beierlorzer 5,656,008 Aug, 12, 1997
Baumuller (EPO Application)1 0679504A1 Nov. 02, 1995
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 39, 40, 42 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Baumuller in view of Beierlorzer.
Claims 10 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baumuller in view of Beierlorzer and Wright.
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. 11), and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and Reply Brief (Paper No.14) for the
appellants arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
1A translation of this foreign language reference is enclosed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007