Appeal No. 2002-1054 Page 2
Application No. 09/436,333
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Sebring 1,696,456 Dec. 25, 1928
Eastman et al. (Eastman) 2,478,470 Aug. 9, 1949
Schmidt 2,619,251 Nov. 25, 1952
Cooley 3,647,102 Mar. 7, 1972
The rejections
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Eastman.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 10-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cooley in view of Eastman.
Claims 3 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Cooley in view of Eastman as applied to claims 1, 2, 7, and 10 to 19, and further in view
of Schmidt.
Claims 8, 9, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Cooley in view of Eastman as applied to claims 1, 2, 7, and 10 to 19 and further in
view of Sebring.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007