Appeal 2006-2859
Application 11/062,725
1 The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
2 unpatentable over Fuss in view of Alivizatos.
3 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
4 appeal is:
5
6 Olesen US 3,459,179 Aug. 5, 1969
7 Groth US 4,566,831 Jan. 28, 1986
8 Tate US 5,316,149 May 31, 1994
9 Alivizatos US 5,618,263 Apr. 8, 1997
10 Fuss US 5,826,404 Oct. 27, 1998
11
12 Appellants contend that none of the references relied on by the
13 Examiner discloses a porous membrane that is deformable in three
14 dimensions to envelop an item of three-dimensional shape. Appellants also
15 contend that Tate, Alivizatos and Olesen do not disclose that the membrane
16 is a net bag. Appellants further contend that Fuss and Alivizatos do not
17 disclose a membrane with self-adherent characteristics.
18 ISSUES
19 The first issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
20 Examiner erred in finding that Tate, Alivizatos, Olesen, Groth, and Fuss
21 disclose a porous membrane deformable in three dimensions to envelop an
22 item of three-dimensional shape.
23 The second issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
24 Examiner erred in the finding that Tate, Alivizatos, and Olsen disclose a
25 membrane that is a net bag.
26 The third issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
27 Examiner erred in finding that Fuss and Alivizatos disclose membranes with
28 self-adherent characteristics.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013