Ex parte BARTLETT et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-2416                                                        
          Application 08/586,807                                                      




                                   THE INVENTION                                      
               The invention relates to a machine tool enclosure                      
          designed to facilitate a controlled machining environment.  A               
          copy of the appealed claims appears in the appendix to the                  
          appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11).                                           
                                   THE PRIOR ART                                      
               The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of                
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Todd et al. (Todd)              2,182,952         Dec. 12,                  
          1939                                                                        
          Zimmermann                      2,330,168         Sep. 21,                  
          1943                                                                        
          Roberts et al. (Roberts)        2,907,200         Oct.  6,                  
          1959                                                                        
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 through 12, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 26                 
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable               
          over Todd in view of Zimmermann.                                            
               Claims 15 and 16 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Todd in view of                         
          Zimmermann and Roberts.                                                     
               Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.              
          11) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper                 
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007