Appeal No. 2001-2357
Application No. 09/093,185
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Bechtner 2,277,286 Mar. 24, 1942
Alexander 5,132,021 Jul. 21, 1992
Flynn et al. (Flynn) WO 94/05863 Mar. 17, 1994
(published PCT Application)
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by the disclosure of Flynn; and
2) Claims 1 through 14, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Alexander and
Bechtner.
We have carefully considered the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s
Section 102 and 103 rejections are not well founded. Therefore,
we reverse the examiner’s aforementioned rejections. Our reasons
for this determination follow.
We reverse the examiner’s Section 102 rejection for those
reasons set forth at pages 3 through 8 of the Brief and pages 1
through 3 of the Reply Brief.
We also reverse the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for
essentially those reasons expressed at pages 8 through 15 of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007