Appeal No. 2002-1423
Application No. 09/531,839
The claimed subject matter may be further understood with
reference to the appealed claims appended to appellant's brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation and obviousness are:
Dehart et al. (Dehart) 4,372,170 Feb. 8, 1983
Hilton GB 2,032,284 A May 8, 1980
Church EP 602,847 A1 Jun. 22, 1994
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 4, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Church.
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Church in view of Dehart.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Church in view of Hilton.
For the views of the appellant and the examiner with respect
to the rejections on appeal, reference is made to the appeal
brief and reply brief on the part of appellant and the examiner's
answer on the part of the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have reached the determination that the
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007