Appeal No. 2003-0021
Application No. 08/983,383
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims
15, 28, and 34 through 37, respective copies of which appear in
the APPENDIX to the main brief (Paper No. 28).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:1
Horner 1,930,939 Oct. 17, 1933
Buckles 2,842,898 Jul. 15, 1958
Morssinkhof et al 4,798,023 Jan. 17, 1989
(Morssinkhof)
Hugonnard-Bruyere et al 2,281,717 Mar. 12, 1976
(France)(Bruyere)
Bollinger et al 513,575 Oct. 15, 1971
(Switzerland) (Bollinger)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 15, 16, 19 through 26, 28, 30, 31, and 34 through 37
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bruyere in view of Bollinger and Morssinkhof.
1 Our understanding of the French and Swiss documents is
derived from a reading of translations thereof prepared in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Respective copies of
the translations are appended to this opinion.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007