Appeal No. 2003-0541 Page 2
Application No. 09/645,845
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a multi-purpose plumbing tool. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 13,
which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Kuhn 3,738,768 Jun. 12, 1973
Rogers 5,440,957 Aug. 15, 1995
Bayouth 5,996,447 Dec. 7, 1999
Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bayouth in view of Rogers.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bayouth in view of Rogers and Kuhn.
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. 8) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 7) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007