Appeal No. 2004-1046
Application No. 09/354,203
In addition to the appellant’s admitted prior art (Figure
1; specification, page 1, line 12 to page 3, line 27), the
examiner relies on the following prior art references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Valentino 4,222,136 Sep. 16, 1980
Hays 4,782,916 Nov. 08, 1988
Acea FR 2,407,330 May 25, 1979
(published FR application)2
Claims 1 through 3 and 7 through 9 on appeal stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of the admitted prior art (Figure 1) and Acea,
Valentino, or Hays. (Examiner’s answer mailed Jun. 14, 2002,
paper 18, pages 2-3.)
We affirm.3 Because we are in complete agreement with the
examiner’s analysis, we incorporate the reasons set forth in the
answer as our own and add the following comments for emphasis.
510 (CCPA 1979); see also 37 CFR § 1.75(e) (2003)(effective Jan.
31, 1978).
2 We attach to this decision an English language
translation of this reference, which the examiner obtained but
did not formally introduce into the record.
3 The appellant states that although the claims vary in
scope, “for purposes of expediency, they will be treated [i.e.,
argued] together.” (Appeal brief filed Nov. 23, 2004, paper 23,
p. 5.) We therefore select claim 7 from the group of rejected
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007