Appeal No. 2003-1982 Page 2
Application No. 09/620,830
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method of seating the end of a post. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Ferguson 4,881,342 Nov. 21, 1989
Kosinski 6,397,520 Jun. 4, 2002
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Kosinski.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 14) and the final rejection (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) 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 applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007