Appeal No. 98-0964
Application 08/557,436
Re "hatch surface", such fails to positively recite
a hatch per se, merely a surface, and therefore
fails to define over the claim of Des. 377,473. The
surface between the seats of Des. 377,473 can be
seen as having straight line cross hatching running
in different directions in different views, thereby
illustrating a planar surface. (answer page 4)
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed October 27, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the above-noted rejections. Appellant’s arguments
there-against are found in the brief (Paper No. 11, filed July
28, 1997).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully considered appellant’s specification
and claims, the applied reference, and the respective
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
As to the examiner's rejection of the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the examiner has determined that the
present utility application contains all of the utilitarian
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007