Ex Parte Paul et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-0414                                                                  Page 2                 
              Application No. 09/833,831                                                                                   


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                             
                     The appellants' invention relates generally to suspended ceiling grid structures                      
              and, more particularly, to cross tees exhibiting linear measurement markings and for                         
              use in a grid structure (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set                     
              forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                              


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                       
              appealed claims are:                                                                                         
              O'Brien et al. (O'Brien)                   3,374,596                    Mar. 26, 1968                        
              Cubbler, Jr. et al. (Cubbler)              3,979,874                    Sep. 14, 1976                        
              Blubaugh et al. (Blubaugh)                 6,269,595                    Aug. 7, 2001                         



                     Claims 1 and 3 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                        
              over Cubbler in view of O'Brien and Blubaugh.                                                                


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                         
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                          
              (Paper No. 10, mailed September 9, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                            
              support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed August 21, 2002) for the                      
              appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                                                          








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007