Appeal No. 2002-2156 2
Application 29/113,438
BACKGROUND
The design is presented in the drawings in top, bottom, and side views.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claim are:
Largever Des. 92,616 Jun. 26, 1934
Hyman Des. 265,354 Jul. 13, 1982
Vonarburg Des. 418,982 Jan. 18, 2000
(filed Oct. 26, 1998)
The design claim stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim of Vonarburg
in view of Largever and Hyman.
The design claim also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vonarburg in view of Largever and Hyman.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1 The appellants have not disputed the examiner’s finding that Vonarburg
constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007