Appeal No. 2003-0371 Page 2
Application No. 09/465,941
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method (claim 17) and apparatus (claims 1-
16) for loading aircraft stringers on a jig. 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:
Peeler et al. (Peeler) 2,948,047 Aug. 9, 1960
Tenebaum et al. (Tenebaum) 3,692,363 Sep. 19, 1972
Woods 4,894,903 Jan. 23, 1990
Carlson et al. (Carlson) 5,253,454 Oct. 19, 1993
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9-11 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Woods.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Woods in view of Carlson.
Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Woods in view of Tenebaum.
Claims 12, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Woods in view of Peeler.
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. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007