Appeal No. 2003-1953 Page 2
Application 09/244,742
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a cutting blade for a cutting apparatus. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 8,
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:
Walker 245,330 Aug. 9, 1881
Sands et al. (Sands) 5,339,716 Aug. 23, 1994
The following are the standing rejections:
(1) Claims 3, 5 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker;
(2) Claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker; and
(3) Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker in view of
Sands.
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. 39) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 38) 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 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007