Appeal No. 2004–0182 Page 2
Application No. 09/933,354
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method of manufacturing a structural tube.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Lawson 2,862,292 Dec. 2, 1958
Lickliter et al. (Lickliter) 3,638,465 Feb. 1, 1972
Sturrus 5,454,504 Oct. 3, 1995
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claims 1, 7 and 9 on the basis of Lickliter in view of Sturrus.
(2) Claim 18 on the basis of Lickliter in view of Lawson.
(3) Claims 19 and 20 on the basis of Lickliter in view of Lawson and Sturrus.
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. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 12) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007