Ex Parte Ewing et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-1620                                                               Page 2                
              Application No. 09/504,416                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellants' invention relates to a pedal assembly, such as a brake pedal                      
              assembly, that is releasable from an operative condition upon imposition of a frontal                    
              load to an automotive vehicle (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is               
              set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                      


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
              appealed claims are:                                                                                     
              Gautier et al. (Gautier)                 5,737,919                   Apr. 14, 1998                       
              Bauer et al. (Bauer)                     5,927,821                   July 27, 1999                       



                     Claims 1 to 5, 8 to 13 and 16 to 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                    
              being anticipated by Bauer.                                                                              


                     Claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          
              unpatentable over Bauer in view of Gautier.                                                              


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final                      
              rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed June 11, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 8, mailed                        








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007