Ex parte QIAO - Page 2




               Appeal No. 1999-2371                                                                         Page 2                  
               Application No. 08/909,834                                                                                           


                                                        BACKGROUND                                                                  
                       The appellant's invention relates to a method of removably securing a speaker grille                         
               to a cabinet (claims 1-7) and to a removable fastening system (claims 8-14).  An                                     
               understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 8, which                             
               appears in an appendix to the appellant's Brief.                                                                     
                       The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                              
               appealed claims are:                                                                                                 
               Raymond                                3,252,677                              May 24,  1966                          
               Notoya                                 4,422,222                              Dec. 27, 1983                          
               Nakamura                               4,681,288                              Jul.   21,  1987                       
               Hiraki et al. (Hiraki)                 4,993,511                              Feb. 19,  1991                         
                       Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                     
               unpatentable over Hiraki in view of Notoya and Raymond.                                                              
                       Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                              
               Hiraki in view of Notoya, Raymond and Nakamura.                                                                      
                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                            
               appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Final Rejection                             
               (Paper No. 4) and the Answer (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                                 
               support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) for the appellant's arguments                             
               thereagainst.                                                                                                        










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007