Appeal No. 2002-1444 Page 2
Application No. 09/004,564
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a gate valve. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 20, which appears in the
appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Peterson 4,221,307 Sep. 9, 1980
Heinecke 5,464,035 Nov. 7, 1995
Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peterson in view of Heinecke.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 20 and 21 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heinecke in view of Peterson.
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. 39) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 38) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 40) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007