Appeal No. 98-1183 Page 2
Application No. 08/352,513
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method and
apparatus for cleaning tilt-in, double hung windows. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 1 and 8, which are reproduced infra.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Reynolds 4,027,802 June 7, 1977
Prete et al. (Prete) 5,251,401 Oct. 12, 1993
Purves 642,299 Aug. 30, 1950
(British)
Claims 1 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Prete in view of Purves and
Reynolds.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed September 24, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007