Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Bates US 98,833 Jan. 11, 1870
West US 349,549 Sep. 21, 1886
Finley US 776,310 Nov. 29, 1904
Staler US 4,453,119 Jun. 5, 1984
Adkins, II US 5,131,888 Jul. 21, 1992
Longo, Sr. US 5,857,807 Jan. 12, 1999
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Adkins, II.
2. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Adkins, II in view of Staler.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Adkins, II in view of Finley, West, or Bates.
4. Claims 9, 12-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II.
5. Claims 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and further in view
of Staler.
6. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and further in view
of Finley, West, or Bates.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellants
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and to
the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013