Ex Parte TANAKA et al - Page 2




              No. 1998-0549                                                                      Page 2                
              Application No. 08/661,711                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellants’ invention relates to a gasket assembly for an internal combustion                 
              engine.  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:                                                                                     
              Dickson                                   2,679,241                   May 25, 1954                       
              Yoshino                                   4,799,695                   Jan. 24, 1989                      
              Matsushita et al. (Matsushito)            5,161,809                   Nov. 10, 1992                      
              Japanese Kokai                            63-149479           Jun. 22, 19881                             
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer                      
              (Paper No. 25) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to                 
              the Brief (Paper No. 24) 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                
              respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence                   
              of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                  


                     1Our understanding of this foreign language reference has been obtained from a PTO translation,   
              a copy of which is enclosed.                                                                             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007