Appeal No. 2002-2208 Page 2
Application No. 09/543,989
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to extrusions which are connected to a rigid
underlying support, such as wood joists, by a snap connector (specification, page 1). A
copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
van den Broek 3,959,830 Jun. 1, 1976
Yoder 5,048,448 Sep. 17, 1991
Groh et al. (Groh) 5,070,664 Dec. 10, 1991
Pollock 5,613,339 Mar. 25, 1997
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Pollock.
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
van den Broek.
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Yoder.
Claims 25-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Groh.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
1 The double patenting rejection set forth in the final rejection has been overcome by the filing of a
terminal disclaimer (see answer, page 2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007