Appeal No. 2002-1720 Page 2
Application No. 09/100,494
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Wixson 3,303,637 Feb. 14, 1967
Fisher et al. (Fisher) 4,126,990 Nov. 28, 1978
Lee 5,862,598 Jan. 26, 1999
(filed Jun. 5, 1996)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 11-14, 17, 26-29 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fisher.
Claims 15, 20-25, 30, 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fisher and Wixson.
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. 28) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 27) 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.
Independent claim 11 reads as follows:
11. Apparatus for cutting weeds, comprising:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007