Appeal No. 98-3288
Application 08/630,304
allowed as indicated in the Advisory Action of October 27,
1997 (Paper No. 10).
Appellants’ invention pertains to a unitized monocoque
enclosure and to an equipment enclosure. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of claims 1 and
11, copies of which appear in APPENDIX A of the brief (Paper
No. 13).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Salmon 4,715,502 Dec. 29, 1987
Nilsson 4,754,369 Jun. 28, 1988
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Salmon in view of Nilsson.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 14), while the complete statement of appellants’
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007