Appeal No. 1998-1258 Page 2
Application No. 08/442,676
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method for loading a plurality of doses of
particulate material into apertures in a plate. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 17, which appears in the appendix to the
appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Schaefer 3,208,192 Sep. 28, 1965
Ulveling et al. (Ulveling) 4,702,288 Oct. 27, 1987
Cocozza et al. (Cocozza) 5,207,217 May 4, 1993
Boyhan 5,271,209 Dec. 21, 1993
Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Boyhan in view of Ulveling.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Boyhan in view of Ulveling and Cocozza.
Claims 20 and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Boyhan in view of Ulveling and Schaefer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 13) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007