Appeal No. 2002-1569 Page 2
Application No. 09/356,431
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a brake assembly. 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:
Heidenreich 5,228,543 Jul. 20, 1993
Daniels 5,762,584 Jun. 9, 1998
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heidenreich in view of Daniels.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) 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
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007