Appeal No. 1997-2508
Application 08/329,463
Claims 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Menold in view of Eggerichs.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 11), while the complete statement of appellant's
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
10 and 12).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied 2
2We are informed by appellant’s “BACKGROUND OF THE
INVENTION” (specification, pages 2 and 3), and the
“INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BY APPLICANT”(IDS)in the
application, as to the state of the art when the present
invention was made. Of particular relevance are the following
documents cited in the IDS and of record in the application:
Vermeiren (U.S. Patent No. 2,652,925) teaching a magnetic
treatment device for liquids with the alternatives of an
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007