Appeal No. 2001-1399 Page 2
Application No. 09/227,819
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a needle protection apparatus. 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:
Landis 5,490,841 Feb. 13, 1996
Pyrozyk et al. (Pyrozyk) 5,843,047 Dec. 1, 1998
(filed Jan. 29, 1997)
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Landis.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Landis in view of Pyrozyk.
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. 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 12) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007