Ex parte HUBER et al. - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2001-0193                                                               Page 2                
             Application No. 09/182,138                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          
                    The appellants’ invention relates to a convertible sign mechanism.  An                            
             understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which                 
             appears in the appendix to the Brief.                                                                    
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
             appealed claims are:                                                                                     
             Pessina et al. (Pessina)                  4,075,896                   Feb. 28, 1978                      
             Ahlgren                                   4,189,859                   Feb. 26, 1980                      
                    Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                        
             Ahlgren in view of Pessina.                                                                              
                    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) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Brief              
             (Paper No. 10) 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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007