Appeal No. 1999-0410
Application 29/063,883
The appealed design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Satas.
In addition, the design claim is also rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Satas.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed September 1, 1998) for the examiner's full reasoning in
support of the above-noted rejections. Attention is directed
to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed August 10, 1998) for
an exposition of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully considered the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of the
applied Satas reference, the examiner's remarks in the answer
and appellant's arguments in the brief, it is our conclusion
that the examiner's rejections of the present design claim
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a) cannot be sustained.
Our reasons for these determinations follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007