Appeal No. 2004-0191 Page 2
Application No. 09/072,241
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a loader. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 21, which has been reproduced in an
appendix to the Brief.
The single prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting
the appealed claims is:
Hoar et al. (Hoar) 2,538,000 Jan 16, 1951
Claims 18, 19 and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way
as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hoar.1
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. 30) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 29) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 32) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
1A rejection of claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) was withdrawn in the Answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007