Appeal No. 2002-0612
Application No. 09/254,631
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 17, a copy of which appears in the appendix to
appellants’ main brief.2
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Pierce, Jr. (Pierce) 4,410,186 Oct. 18, 1983
Lee, III et al. (Lee) 5,121,947 Jun. 16, 1992
Arnold et al. (Arnold) 5,571,243 Nov. 05, 1996
Claims 17, 20, 21, 23, 31-33 and 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Pierce.
Claims 21-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arnold in view of Pierce and further in view of
Lee.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 21 and 23) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
22) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
I. The § 103 rejection based on Arnold and Pierce.
Arnold, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to a
radial piston pump having components that correspond generally to
2In addition to the appealed claims, said appendix also includes a copy
of allowed claims 18, 19 and 34-36.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007