Appeal No. 2004-1920 Page 2
Application No. 09/302,1999
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an impact tool in combination with a hollow
pole. 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:
Moeller 2,572,370 Oct. 23, 1951
Pesaturo 2,759,486 Aug. 21, 1956
De Rosa et al. (De Rosa) 4,836,232 Jun. 6, 1989
Reed et al. (Reed) 4,920,897 May 1, 1990
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claims 1, 6-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 on the basis of Moeller in view of De Rosa and
Pesaturo.
(2) Claims 1-5, 13-15 and 18 on the basis of De Rosa in view of Pesaturo and Moeller.
(3) Claim 18 on the basis of De Rosa in view of Pesaturo, Moeller and Reed.
(4) Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 on the basis of Pesaturo in view of De Rosa and Moeller.
(5) Claim 18 on the basis of Pesaturo in view of De Rosa, Moeller and Reed.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 24) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 23) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 25) 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