Appeal No. 2005-1549
Application No. 10/193,407
thermoplastic elastomer injected into a mold cavity. See the
Brief, pages 8 and 9.
For the factual findings set forth in the Answer and above,
we are not persuaded by the appellants’ arguments. Thus, on this
record, we concur with the examiner that Enlow would have
suggested the subject matter defined by claims 13, 15 through 17,
19, 20, 22 and 23 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 11, 12, 14, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and claims 13, 15 through 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007