Appeal No. 2004-0241 Page 2
Application No. 09/773,366
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a multi-spindle machine. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Schubert 3,747,444 Jul. 24, 1973
Zugel 4,644,819 Feb. 24, 1987
Manning (Manning ‘031) 5,676,031 Oct. 14, 1997
Manning (Manning ‘037) 5,730,037 Mar. 24, 1998
Cucchi 6,044,736 Apr. 4, 2000
Claims 1, 2, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Schubert.
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Zugel in view of Cucchi.
Claims 4-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Zugel in view of Cucchi and Manning ‘031.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schubert in view of Manning ‘037.
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. 10) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007