Appeal No. 2002-1548
Application No. 09/408,042
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-
noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed May 23,
2001) and examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed February 1,
2002) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 18, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed March 12, 2002) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 1, 3 through 8, 11 through 14 and 16
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Dominguez, the examiner directs us to Figure 4 of the applied
Dominguez patent urging that the hopper car end unit (4) seen
therein is fully responsive to the car body defined in
appellants’ claims before us on appeal. More specifically, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007