Appeal No. 2004-0763 Page 2
Application No. 09/758,641
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Amonett 5,684,281 Nov. 04, 1997
Yamane et al. (Yamane) 6,213,677 Apr. 10, 2001
(filed Nov. 03, 1998)
Claims 1-11 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amonett in view of Yamane.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 8) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief (Paper No. 7) 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.
Amonett discloses an appliance timer assembly comprising a shaft control knob
504, a control shaft 438 and a shaft locking pin 502. The control shaft 438 includes a
shaft base end 496, a shaft hub bearing 498 and a shaft control end 500. The control
shaft 438 cooperates with the base control shaft mount 142 (Figure 3b) and camstack
hub to provide a rotational axis for the camstack 62. The shaft control knob 504
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007