Appeal No. 2000-0291
Application 08/873,958
fusing surface that is deficient. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Moxon 3,604,239 Sept. 14, 1971
The prior art admitted by the appellants to be old
appearing on pages 1 to 2 of the specification.
The rejections
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”) in view of Moxon.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 10, June 7, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 9, filed May 24, 1999) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007