Appeal No. 2000-2087 Page 2
Application No. 09/039474
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a hammer. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant's Amended Brief (Paper No. 11).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Newbrough 611,973 Oct. 4,1898
Palomera 4,465,115 Aug. 14,1984
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Palomera in view of Newbrough.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 12) and the final rejection (Paper No. 5) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the Amended Brief (Paper No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper
No. 13) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007