Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Baker et al. (Baker) US 6,458,005 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
(filed Jul. 19, 1999)
Wu et al. (Wu) US 5,756,147 May 26, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Baker in view of Wu.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (mailed 3/10/04) for an explanation
of the examiner’s rejection and to appellant’s brief (filed 1/26/04) and reply brief (filed
3/22/04) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision, we have carefully reviewed the appellant’s specification
and claims, the applied references and, the arguments of the appellant and the
examiner. As a result of this review we have reached the conclusion that claim 1 would
have been obvious in view of Baker to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. We affirm the rejection of all claims on appeal. Our reasons follow.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising: temporarily flattening a sheet; processing
said sheet; and securing said sheet to a second sheet while continuing to hold said
sheet in a flattened configuration.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007