Ex Parte Skvorecz - Page 5



                Appeal 2006-1989                                                                             
                Application 09/772,278                                                                       
                Patent 5,996,948                                                                             

                (2) Whether Appellants have established the Examiner erred in rejecting                      
                      claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because claimed                            
                      limitations are not taught by Buff?                                                    

                                           FINDINGS OF FACT                                                  
                      The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by a                       
                preponderance of the evidence.                                                               
                                             A.  The Invention                                               
                      1. Appellant invented a wire chafing stand.  The wire chafing                          
                stand permits multiple wire chafing stands to be nested and readily separated                
                from one another without causing wedging. (Specification, col. 1, ll. 51-53).                
                      2. Appellant states at column 3, lines 21-27, that:                                    
                      FIG. 1-6 . . . illustrate a pair of nested wire chafing stands 10 of                   
                      identical construction with each stand 10 including an upper                           
                      rim 12 of any desired geometry, such as oval, square or                                
                      rectangular, and a lower rim 14 of a geometry substantially                            
                      identical to that of the upper rim 12.                                                 
                      3. Appellant states at column 3, lines 29-32, that:                                    
                      The upper rim 12 is spaced apart from the lower rim 14 by wire                         
                      legs 16 so that the upper and lower rims are in a substantially                        
                      parallel relationship.                                                                 
                                                    - 5 -                                                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013