Appeal No. 97-0767
Application No. 08/383,996
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fox in view of Tanigawa. The examiner
considers that it would have been obvious to provide the bat of
Fox with a valve for pressurizing the interior thereof in view of
the teachings of Tanigawa.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellant and
examiner in support of their respective positions, reference is
made to the brief, reply brief, answer and supplemental answer
for the full exposition thereof.3
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellant in the brief and supplemental brief and by the
examiner in the answer and supplemental answer. This review
leads us to conclude that the prior art relied on by the examiner
establishes the obviousness of the appealed subject matter within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3A supplemental reply brief filed on September 30, 1996
(Paper No. 14) has not been entered by the examiner (see Paper
Nos. 15 and 18).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007