Appeal No. 2004-0996
Application No. 09/520,947
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Blum 2,132,144 Oct. 04, 1938
Morris 3,428,240 Feb. 18, 1969
Collins et al. (Collins) 5,741,075 Apr. 21, 1998
McEachen 243745 A Aug. 27, 1996
(published New Zealand Patent Application)
Theed 2 331 059 A May 12, 1999
(published UK Patent Application)
The following rejections are before us for review in this
appeal:
(1) claims 25, 26 and 30-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris in view of McEachen and Theed
(Answer, page 3);
(2) claim 27 stands rejected under § 103(a) over Morris in view
of McEachen, Theed and Collins (id.);
(3) claims 28 and 35 stand rejected under § 103(a) over Morris
in view of McEachen, Theed and Blum (id.); and
(4) claim 29 stand rejected under § 103(a) over Morris in view
of McEachen, Theed, Collins and Blum (id.).
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set
forth below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007