Appeal No. 2002-1054 Page 3
Application No. 09/436,333
rejection (Paper No. 4, mailed March 8, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 8, mailed
December 11, 2001 ) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 6, filed August 15, 2001) and reply brief (Paper
No. 9, filed January 25, 2001 ) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Eastman.
The appellant has not discussed this rejection in either the brief or the reply brief.
Therefore, we will summarily affirm this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 10 to 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley in view of Eastman. In support of
this rejection, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the
top plate and groove mount teaching set forth in Eastman in the construction of the
device of Cooley motivated by the flush top achieved thereby.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007