Appeal No. 2004-0942 Page 2
Application No. 08/718,573
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method for treating an underwater bed. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 36,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The single prior art reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Cousineau 5,305,585 Apr. 26, 1994
Claims 36-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cousineau.
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. 30) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 29) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 32) 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 reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007