Ex Parte DENNEY et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-0037                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 08/899,292                                                                                 


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for shaping a slab of cellular                    
              polymer material by cutting and removing portions of the material from an outer surface                    
              of the slab.  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the                        
              appellants' brief.                                                                                         


                     Claims 1 to 5 and 10 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                            
              unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 795,359 to Moore.                                                        


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final                         
              rejection (Paper No. 17, mailed May 23, 2000) and the answer (Paper No. 25, mailed                         
              April 11, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to                  
              the brief (Paper No. 24, filed January 25, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed June                 
              13, 2001) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                                      


                                                       OPINION                                                           
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                     
              the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                  
              respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  Upon evaluation of                   








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007