Ex Parte MORI et al - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2002-1853                                                          Page 2              
            Application No. 09/340,339                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The appellants’ invention relates to a cylinder head arrangement for an internal           
            combustion engine.  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:                                                                              
            Tsuchida (Tsuchida ‘038)               5,529,038                 Jun. 25, 1996                    
            Fujieda et al. (Fujieda)               5,666,916                 Sep. 16, 1997                    
            Tsuchida et al. (Tsuchida ‘638)        5,799,638                 Sep.   1, 1998                   
                   Claims 1, 3-10 and 13-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                     
            unpatentable over Tsuchida ‘638 in view of Fujieda.                                               
                   Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                
            over Tsuchida ‘638 in view of Fujieda and Tsuchida ‘038.                                          
                   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. 22) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and            
            to the Brief (Paper No. 21) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 23) for the appellants’ arguments          
            thereagainst.                                                                                     




                                                  OPINION                                                     








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007