Appeal No. 2006-2063
Application No. 10/126,019
for modifying the filler content of the two-part adhesive of
Sondhi to be something other than that disclosed and taught in
the patent.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 30 and 32 through 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Randklev in view
Sondhi.
A review of the additional patents to Brennan and Kaelble
demonstrates that such patents do not overcome or otherwise cure
the deficiencies in the basic combination of Randklev and Sondhi
noted above. Thus, the rejections of claims 29 and 37 through 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
Since we have not sustained any of the rejections put forth
by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), it follows that the
decision of the examiner is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007