Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
The Examiner has also rejected claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Swift and the
Wallick references. In my opinion, this rejection is also deficient because
the Examiner relies on the Wallick references for describing a spray device
capable of applying water slowly to the fluted portion of the corrugated
product. That stated above, the Wallick references have not been established
by the Examiner to provide disclosure which indicates that the spray
mechanism is suitable for application of water solely to the fluted areas.
Therefore, I would reverse this rejection.
In summary, I agree with the affirmance by the majority of the
rejection of claim 35. However, I disagree with the majority's affirmance of
the rejection of claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
clj
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 6300
Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
-20-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Last modified: November 3, 2007