Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
Claim 9 illustrates Appellant’s invention of a method for protecting an
exposed surface, and is representative of the claims on appeal:
9. A method for protecting an exposed surface:
providing an electrostatically charged sheet having a top and bottom
surface;
providing an absorbent layer having top and bottom surfaces, said
bottom surface of said absorbent layer being in contact with said top surface
of said electrostatically charged sheet; and
placing said bottom surface of said electrostatically charged sheet in
contact with said exposed surface.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Martin US 4,043,331 Aug. 23, 1977
Barby US 4,797,310 Jan. 10, 1989
Milani US 5,807,366 Sep. 15, 1998
Reader US 5,883,026 Mar. 16, 1999
Chen US 6,261,679 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
Siess US 6,379,427 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Br.1 2-3), all advanced on appeal:
claims 9, 10, and 17 as unpatentable over Siess in view of Reader (Answer
3-4);
claims 11 and 13 as unpatentable over Siess in view of Reader as applied to
claim 9 and further in view of Chen (id. 5);
claim 12 as unpatentable over Siess in view of Reader further in view of
Chen as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Milani (id. 5-6);
claim 14 as unpatentable over Siess in view of Reader further in view of
Chen as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Martin (id. 6-7); and
claims 15, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Siess in view of Reader as
applied to claim 9 and further in view of Barby (id. 7-8);
1 We consider the Brief filed May 26, 2005 and the Reply Brief filed
February 27, 2006.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013