Appeal No. 97-1444 Page 2
Application No. 08/394,499
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a popping mat or toy.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 1 and 8, which appear in the appendix to the
appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Heckel et al. 4,147,828 Apr. 3, 1979
(Heckel)
Nisbet-Baldwin et al. 2,225,536 June 6, 1990
(Nisbet-Baldwin) (United Kingdom)
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nisbet-Baldwin in view of Heckel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
September 30, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No.
10, filed July 12, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
October 24, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007