Ex parte BARTOCCI - Page 5




                 Appeal No. 1998-2119                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/343,965                                                                                                             


                          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in rejecting claims 1-9, 13-15 and 17 are:                                                                                    
                 French Patent           2                             2,445,210                                             Jul.                       
                 25, 1980                                                                                                                               
                 Japanese Kokai           3                   4-101845                                     Apr.  3, 1992                                
                                                                                                                                                       

                          Claims 1-9, 13-15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                       
                 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over French ‘210 in view of                                                                             
                 Japanese ‘845.                                                                                                                         


                          Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full                                                                          
                 explanation with regard to the above noted rejection and the                                                                           
                 conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant                                                                          
                 regarding the rejection, we make reference to the final                                                                                
                 rejection (Paper No. 10, mailed August 29, 1996) and the                                                                               
                 examiner’s answer (Paper No. 21, mailed September 15, 1997)                                                                            


                          2A copy of an English translation of French Patent                                                                            
                 2,445,210 obtained by the USPTO and relied upon by this panel                                                                          
                 of the Board in deciding this appeal is appended to the                                                                                
                 decision for appellant’s convenience.                                                                                                  
                          3We have also relied upon a copy of an English                                                                                
                 translation of Japan 4-101,845 provided by appellant in                                                                                
                 deciding this appeal.                                                                                                                  
                                                                           5                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007