Appeal No. 2001-2589 Page 2
Application No. 09/072,911
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a device for cutting sheet material such as
paper or cloth to a desired depth and angle. 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:
Herman 3,885,306 May 27, 1975
Go et al. (Go) 4,901,440 Feb. 20, 1990
Rotax (French Patent) 969,731 Dec. 26, 19501
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the applicants regard as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rotax in view of Herman.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rotax in view of Herman and Go.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 20) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
1Our understanding of this reference has been obtained from a PTO translation, a copy of which is
enclosed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007