Appeal No. 2000-0084 Page 2
Application No. 08/619,672
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a self-penetrating fastening device. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 9, 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:
Bray 203,815 May 21, 1878
Cummings 414,682 Nov. 12, 1889
Schleicher 5,621,961 Apr. 22, 1997
South Africa Published 918,340 Oct. 18, 1991
Patent Application (Ariel)
Claims 9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated
by Ariel.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ariel in view of Schleicher.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariel
in view of either Cummings or Bray.
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. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 17) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007