Appeal No. 2001-0210 Page 2
Application No. 08/560,675
The appellant's invention relates to a counterline comprising a series of adjacent
modules. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 40, 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:
Wolff et al. (Wolff) 4,094,561 Jun. 13, 1978
Newhouse et al. (Newhouse) 5,237,935 Aug. 24, 1993
European Patent Application 0 010 301 A1 Apr. 30, 1980
(Hoffman)1
Claims 40, 22 and 25-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Newhouse.
Claims 24 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hoffman in view of Newhouse and Wolff.
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. 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 appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
1A PTO translation of this reference is enclosed. Although the name of the first
listed inventor on this reference is Hildebrandt, the examiner has referred to it as Hoffman,
and we shall do so also for the sake of continuity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007