Appeal No. 2005-0381 Page 3
Application No. 09/841,380
Hall 1,278,099 GB June 14, 1972
Booth, “Evolution of Coating,” Volume 1, December 1995 (From Applicant’s IDS filed
09-10-01)
The specific rejections maintained by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hess;1
2. Claims 33-35, 37, 38, 43, 51, 52, and 54-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hess and Nakajima;2
3. Claims 36, 42, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hess and Nakajima and further in view of Booth;
4. Claims 38-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess
and Nakajima and further in view of Neidich; and
5. Claims 44-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess
and Nakajima and further in view of Hall.
Appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall together and they list various
groupings (Brief, p.11). We will select one claim from each grouping to resolve the issues on
appeal.
1The Answer refers to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but it is clear from the Final Rejection that the rejection is
maintained under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Appellants address the rejection as made under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(Brief,
p. 10 and 14; Reply Brief, p. 3). The error is, thus, harmless.
2The Examiner provided reasons why claim 55 is unpatentable, but did not include claim 55 in the
statement of rejection. (Answer, p. 5). The omission of claim 55 from the statement of rejection is harmless error
because Appellants understood claim 55 as being rejected as is evidenced from their arguments in the Briefs (Brief,
pp. 25-26; Reply Brief, pp. 11-12).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007