Appeal 2006-2721
Application 09/579,938
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references with respect
to claim interpretation (Answer, e.g., 3 and 5):
Moran US 5,899,362 May 4, 1999
“Viscosity,” “Cole Palmer’s FoodTechSource” (2002) (Palmer),
http://www.foodtechsource.com/rcenter/tech_data/td_viscosity.html.
Appellant relies on the evidence in these references with respect to
claim interpretation (Br.,2 e.g., 8 and Evidence Appendix):
“Paint Thickness Differences,” “Airbrushing, Basic Education” (Curry),
http://www.currys.com/knowledge/aboutairbr.html.
“1 US Gallon Endure permanent Exterior House Paint,” “eBay” (2004) (“Endure”
information), http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:zlAWOHkFI_sJ:building-
repair-materials.home-items-portal.com/1-US-Gallon-Endure-Permanent-
Exterior-House-Paint-
3535666.html+viscosity+%22house+paint%22+centipoise&hl=en.
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection (Br.
5-6), the grounds all advanced on appeal:3
claims 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement (Answer 3-4);
claims 1, 3, 4, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by DeVito (id.
4-5);
claims 1, 3, 4, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Briggs (id.
5-6);
claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Corbin (id. 6-7);
claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 19, 22 through 26, and 29
through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reed (id. 8-
13); and
2 We consider the Brief filed October 11, 2005.
3 The ground of rejection of claims 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer 2-3; see Br. 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013