Appeal No. 97-0997
Application 08/370,851
the flapper. The appealed claims are reproduced in the
appendix of appellant’s brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Schoepe et al. (Schoepe) 2,985,291 May 23,
1961
Woolf et al. (Woolf) 3,943,577 Mar. 16,
1976
Freed 4,698,859 Oct. 13,
1987
Claims 1 and 7 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Freed in view of Woolf and Schoepe.2
The basis of the rejection is stated on pages 4 and 5 of
the examiner’s answer, and need not be repeated here.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the combination of
references applied by the examiner does not make out a prima
facie case of obviousness.
Initially, we agree with the examiner that, for the
reasons stated by him, it would have been obvious to utilize a
2In the Advisory Action of April 22, 1996 (Paper No. 7), the examiner indicated
that a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was overcome by the
amendment filed on April 8, 1996.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007