Appeal No. 2003-1554 Page 3
Application No. 09/552,063
Claims 5 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamel in view of Anderson, Nelson and Bullinger and further in view
of Bobka.
Claims 6, 7 and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamel in view of Anderson, Nelson and Bullinger and further in view
of Tharaldson and Clark.
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. 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) 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
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellant’s claims recites a hydraulic power unit comprising, inter alia, a
hydraulic pump, a valve and a hydraulic accumulator, with the accumulator having an
inlet/outlet port which is fluidly connected both to the discharge side of the pump and to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007