Appeal 2006-2846
Application 10/349,468
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability1:
Studen US 3,473,682 Oct. 21, 1969
Henderson US 4,540,611 Sep. 10, 1985
Shelby US 5,445,315 Aug. 29, 1995
Dickert US 5,826,786 Oct. 27, 1998
Welch US 6,138,902 Oct. 31, 2000
Rosato, "Plastics Processing Data Handbook, Second edition, 1967.
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Henderson in view of Studen.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shelby in view of Studen.
3. Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dickert in view of either Welch or Shelby in further
view of Studen.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellant and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
With regard to all of the § 103(a) rejections, Appellant argues none of
the references discloses “a thermal insulating layer comprising a low density
polyethylene material” (Br. 9, 11, 12). Appellant contends expanded
1 In any further prosecution of this case, U.S. Patent 6,814,253 to Wong
should be considered for double patenting.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013