Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 2
Application No. 09/291,716
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an archery training device. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Maxwell 1,564,089 Dec. 1, 1925
Kieselhorst 2,526,369 Oct. 17, 1950
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Maxwell.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Maxwell.
Claims 11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kieselhorst.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007