Ex parte VALIULIS - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-4213                                                        
          Application No. 08/359,407                                                  

               The appellant's invention is directed to a molded plastic              
          hanger.  The claims on appeal have been reproduced in an                    
          appendix to the Brief.                                                      
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
               The references relied upon by the examiner to support the              
          final rejection are:                                                        
          Fearing                  2,109,213                     Feb. 22,             
          1938                                                                        
          O’Brien                  4,671,417                     Jun.  9,             
          1987                                                                        
          Brozak                   5,439,120                     Aug.  8,             
          1995                                                                        
                                                  (filed May 4, 1993)                 
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being               
          unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Brozak and Fearing.                    
               Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full                   
          commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the                 
          conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                     
          appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the                 
          Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 12) for the reasoning in support               
          of the rejections, and to the appellant’s Briefs (Paper Nos.                
          11 and 13), for the arguments in opposition thereto.                        
                                       OPINION                                        

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007