Appeal No. 1997-4000
Application 08/319,004
justify the examiner’s conclusion that “it would have been
obvious to modify the device in the cited art reference to
Petrucelli [sic] by providing a surface opposite to the
striking face with a recess into which a pad is affixed”
(answer, page 5).
In summary:
a) the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claims 1 through 8 is sustained;
b) the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Kaye is sustained;
c) the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5, 7 and 8 as being anticipated by Petruccelli is
sustained;
d) the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Petruccelli in view of Kobayashi is not
sustained; and
e) the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 6 as being
unpatentable over Petruccelli in view of Mosier is sustained.
Since at least one rejection of each of the claims on
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007