Appeal No. 2004-1666 Page 2
Application No. 09/586,912
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a sealant for sealing around conduits (claims
1-3) and to methods of sealing around conduits (claims 6-11). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 6, which appear in
the appendix to the appellants' Brief.
The prior art relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Grannis III (Grannis) 3,841,032 Oct. 15, 1974
Isgur et al. (Isgur) 4,182,649 Jan. 8, 1980
The prior art insecticides disclosed on page 4 of the appellants’ specification (the
admitted prior art).
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grannis in view of Isgur and the admitted prior art.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 28) and the final rejection (Paper No. 21) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the Brief (Paper No. 26) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 29)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007