Appeal No. 2004-2346 Page 3
Application No. 09/876,519
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Staser in view of Minnick and Rich.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Staser in view of Minnick, Rich and Pokorney.
Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Staser in view of Rich, Racine and Minnick.
Claims 16-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Staser in view of Rich and Pokorney.
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. 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 20) 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.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Staser in view of Racine. Staser discloses an automotive vehicle having a moveable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007