Appeal 2006-1941
Application 09/877,835
Rejection of claims 4 and 17
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, and claim 17, which depends
from claim 14, require that the core layer comprises more than one layer.
The appellants quote the examiner’s argument regarding the
disclosure on Farrally’s page 411 (brief, page 11), and then argue that
“Farrally et al. (on page 411) discloses that double cores, not a core with two
or more layers, are advantageous” (brief, page 12).
The copy of Farrally in the office electronic file does not have a page
411; it has only pages 441-442. A faxed copy of Farrally received from the
appellant’s counsel on February 6, 2007 also has only pages 441-442. We
do not find on those pages a disclosure regarding any advantage of a double
core. Furthermore, Melvin uses the terms “core having a two layer
structure” and “double core” interchangeably (col. 9, lines 29-37). Thus, we
are not convinced by the appellant’s argued distinction between a double
core which, the appellant concedes Farrally discloses (brief, page 12), and a
core with two or more layers.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013