Appeal No. 2002-0334 Page 2
Application No. 08/779,361
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a volatile corrosion inhibiting device for
firearms. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Cech 4,100,693 Jul. 18, 1978
Wolford 5,315,778 May 31, 1994
Claims 1, 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Cech.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Cech in view of Wolford.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 21) and the Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 25) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 9) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007