Appeal 2006-2301
Application 10/606,988
(e) claims 5 and 19 over the stated combination of references;
(f) claims 6 and 20 over the stated combination of references;
(g) claim 7 over Brossy in view of Barry and Debouzie;
(h) claims 8, 21, and 22 over Brossy in view of Barry and Debouzie;
(i) claims 9 and 23 over Brossy in view of Barry and Debouzie;
(j) claims 10 and 24 over Brossy in view of Barry;
(k) claims 11 and 25 over Brossy in view of Barry and Mazza;
(l) claims 12 and 26 over Brossy in view of Barry;
(m) claims 13 and 27 over Brossy in view of Barry;
(n) claims 14 and 28 over Brossy in view of Barry; and
(o) claim 29 over Brossy in view of Barry.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Brossy, like Appellant, discloses a method for making a smooth surface
board from fibrous material by moving the material through an oven on a
conveyor assembly to produce a board of fibrous material, wherein the
conveyor assembly includes upper and lower conveyors that move at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013