Ex Parte TANSOSCH - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2003-0144                                                               Page 2                
             Application No. 09/400,932                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          
                    The appellant's invention relates to pumping hose adapters which are particularly                 
             useful to control the velocity of concrete pumped from a truck via a boom (specification,                
             p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's                
             brief.                                                                                                   


                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
             appealed claims are:                                                                                     
             Henderson                          493,719                            Mar. 21, 1893                      
             Metzger                            4,838,465                          June 13, 1989                      


                    Claims 13 and 16 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                              
             unpatentable over Metzger in view of Henderson.                                                          


                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
             the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                       
             (Paper No. 27, mailed May 22, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support                     
             of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 26, filed May 6, 2002) and reply brief (Paper              
             No. 28, filed July 22, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                 










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007