Appeal No. 2006-0511 Page 9
Application No. 10/258,312
limitations of claims 5, 29 and 30, directed to repeated contacting
(claim 5) and backflash (claims 29 and 30), were well known in this
art (Answer, page 6). Appellants merely argue that “Peterson et1
al. does not cure the deficiencies of Wang” (Brief, page 8).
Accordingly, we adopt our remarks about Wang from above. We also
adopt the examiner’s findings of fact and conclusion of law
regarding the combination of Wang and Peterson (Answer, pages 5-6),
and affirm the rejection of claims 5, 29 and 30 under section
103(a) over Wang in view of Peterson.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Wang is affirmed. The rejection of
claims 5, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wang in view of
Peterson is also affirmed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
1We note that these limitations have also been disclosed by
Wang (col. 2, ll. 3-11, regarding forming a “floor”; col. 8, ll.
3-8, regarding the “traditional backflashing” method; and col. 9,
ll. 39-45, regarding the use of numerous “contacts” or passes to
remove all of the uncured material).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007