Ex Parte SPINKS et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-0683                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 09/319,680                                                                                 


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellants' invention relates to spring units for beds, divan beds, mattresses,                 
              and other upholstery units (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set                
              forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                            


                     Claims 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                         
              anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 1,192,5101 to Fischmann.                                                    


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final                         
              rejection (Paper No. 17, mailed April 22, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 20, mailed                       
              August 29, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and                    
              to the brief (Paper No. 19, filed July 29, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed                      
              November 5, 2002) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                              


                                                       OPINION                                                           
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                     
              the appellants' specification and claims, to the Fischmann patent, and to the respective                   
              positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our                         

                     1 Issued July 25, 1916.                                                                             







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007