Appeal No. 2002-0946 Page 3
Application No. 09/590,121
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Loxterkamp 771,376 Oct. 4, 1904
Bram 2,780,951 Feb. 12, 1957
Halpin 5,056,383 Oct. 15, 1991
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Loxterkamp in view of Halpin and Bram.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 9) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 8 and 10) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification2 and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
2 The amendment to page 1 of the specification (see Paper No. 3, page 1, item 4) providing
continuing data apparently lists an incorrect parent application number. It appears that the correct
application number is 09/173,417.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007