Appeal No. 2001-2595
Application 09/245,640
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hennessey in view of Meyer as applied to claims
1, 19 and 22 above and further in view of Swann.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we refer to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15, mailed June 11,
2001) and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12, filed January 25,
2001) for a full exposition thereof.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 19,
22, 27 through 29 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hennessey in view of Meyer, we note that the
examiner has determined (answer, page 4) that Hennessey discloses
a pair of opposing vise jaw plates (e.g., Fig. 10) with a pattern
of holes (26, 27) on the plates for receiving work piece holders
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007