Appeal No. 2005-1051 13
Application No. 09/788,147
from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant’s disclosure. The combined teachings of Pavone and
Fuerst also lack response to the sidewall cut-out portion
limitations in claim 22 and the gelatinous material limitation in
claim 26.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 22, and dependent claims 3,
4, 12, 15, 17 through 21, 23 and 27 through 29, as being
unpatentable over Dyer in view of Fuerst.
Summary
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 1 through 6, 8, 11, 13 through 15, 17,
22, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Schenkel is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 6, 8, 11,
13 through 15 and 17, and reversed with respect to claims 22, 23
and 26;
b) to reject claims 1, 4 through 6, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fuerst is
reversed;
c) to reject claims 1 through 4, 11, 15 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Preston in view of
Fuerst is reversed;
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007