Ex parte HOYT - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-1596                                                          
          Application No. 08/106,489                                                  


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellant's invention relates to a combination cap and             
          material tooling device.  Claims 1 and 6 are representative of              
          the subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims, as they            
          appear in the appellant's brief, is attached to this decision.              


               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) is:           
          Stull                    2,930,063                March 29, 1960            


               Claims 1, 2, 4 through 11 and 13 through 17 stand rejected             
          under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Stull.                     


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and the appellant regarding the  102(b) rejection,            
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, mailed            
          November 2, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                  
          support of the rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No.           
          9, filed September 12, 1995) for the appellant's arguments                  
          thereagainst.                                                               




                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007