Appeal No. 2003-1476 Page 2
Application No. 09/291,983
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a low profile hacksaw, the hacksaw having a
frame assembly comprising a rigid I-beam frame member and an arcuate portion
extending substantially the entire length between a forward end portion and the
maximum height portion of the frame member. 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 in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Wells 679,653 Jul. 30, 1901
David 3,329,186 Jul. 4, 1967
The following is the sole rejection before us for review.1
Claims 1, 3-9, 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over David in view of Wells in further view of Official Notice.2,3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 30) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
1 The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn (answer, page 2).
2 Although the examiner did not include “official notice” in the statement of the rejection, it is
apparent from the explanation of the examiner’s rejection that Official Notice is relied upon.
3 The references cited by the examiner on page 7 of the answer have not been considered in
deciding this appeal because they have not been included in the statement of the rejection. See In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n. 3 (CCPA 1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007