Appeal No. 2001-2533 Page 2
Application No. 09/372,988
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a tubular body. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Qureshi et al. (Qureshi) 4,567,216 Jan. 28, 1986
Fenton et al. (Fenton) 5,093,162 Mar. 3, 1992
Akatsuka et al. (Akatsuka) 5,156,396 Oct. 20, 1992
Okada 5,968,621 Oct. 19, 1999
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claim 1 on the basis of Akatsuka in view of Fenton.
(2) Claim 2 on the basis of Akatsuka in view of Qureshi.
(3) Claim 3 on the basis of Akatsuka in view of Okada.
(4) Claim 4 on the basis of Akatsuka.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007