Appeal No. 2004-0658 Page 2
Application No. 09/419,579
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an audible warning signal for roadway work
zones (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellants' brief.1
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Sullivan 4,265,194 May 5, 1981
Cameron 6,035,567 Mar. 14, 2000
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Cameron.
Claims 2 to 5 and 7 to 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cameron in view of Sullivan.
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. 20, mailed July 29, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
1 In claim 7, the phrase "said audible warning device" should be changed to --said audible warning
means-- for proper antecedent basis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007