Ex parte JUNGMANN et al. - Page 2

                 Appeal No. 1998-1642                                                                                     Page 2                        
                 Application No. 08/541,894                                                                                                             

                          The appellants' invention relates to a reciprocating saw.                                                                     
                 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a                                                                                
                 reading of exemplary claim 24, which appears in the appendix                                                                           
                 to the appellants' brief.                                                                                                              
                                                                The prior art                                                                           
                          The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                                                                          
                 examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                                                                                          
                 Hoffman                                      3,750,283                                    Aug.  7, 1973                                

                                                                The rejection                                                                           
                          Claims 24 through 28, 30, 32 through 35, 37, 39 and 41                                                                        
                 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated                                                                           
                 by Hoffman.1                                                                                                                           
                          Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced                                                                     
                 by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                                                                           
                 rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper                                                                           
                 No. 14, mailed October 27, 1997) for the examiner’s reasoning                                                                          
                 in support of the rejection and to the appellants' reply brief                                                                         

                          1This rejection was entered as a new rejection in the                                                                         
                 Examiner’s Answer.  The examiner’s rejection based on the                                                                              
                 Dillon reference has been withdrawn. (See Letter from the                                                                              
                 examiner, Paper No. 17).                                                                                                               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007