Appeal No. 2004-0018 Page 3
Application No. 09/220,018
The specific rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Deblander.
2. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Deblander.
3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Deblander in view of Shirai.
We reverse substantially for the reasons presented in Appellants’ Amended Brief3 and
Reply Brief and add the following for emphasis.
OPINION
For each of the rejections, the Examiner relies upon Deblander as describing “a foamed
propylene sheet (column 3, lines 59-60) having the presently claimed cell sizes (Examples 1, 5,
6, 7, 9, and 10-13).” The problem is that Deblander does not describe such a propylene sheet.
The examples the Examiner relies upon describe a polystyrene sheet not a polypropylene sheet.
The fact that column 3, lines 59-60 mentions propylene polymer as useful in the foam insulation
body of Deblander does not change the fact that the examples are specific to polystyrene foam
bodies. Nor is there any disclosure in Deblander, relied upon by the Examiner, which indicates
3The Amended Brief replaces an earlier Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007