Appeal No. 2004-0176 Page 2
Application No. 09/651,328
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Lamo 5,613,891 Mar. 25, 1997
Hall 5,975,978 Nov. 2, 1999
Bean 6,328,623 Dec. 11, 2001
(filed Jun. 7, 1999)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lamo in view of Hall.
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lamo in view of Hall and Bean.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 9) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 8) 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 independent claims 1 and 8 recites an apparatus comprising
an air reservoir pneumatically coupled to a game call and an air tube having a proximal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007