Ex Parte Zehnder, II et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2004-1109                                                        
          Application No. 09/754,686                                                  

               a spring emulator integral to and carried near the master              
          cylinder wherein isolation of the reservoir from said master                
          cylinder diverts fluid pressure into said spring emulator.                  
               The examiner has relied upon the following references as               
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Campau et al. (Campau)        5,941,608          Aug. 24, 1999              
          Sasaki et al. (Sasaki)        6,056,013          May  02, 2000              
          Feigel et al. (Feigel)        196 40 767 A1      Apr. 09, 1998              
          (published German Offenlegungsschrift)2                                     
          Hoyt, Wade A. (ed.), Reader’s Digest Complete Car Care Manual               
          (Complete Car Care Manual), p. 111, The Reader’s Digest                     
          Association, Inc., Pleasantville, New York, 1981.                           
               The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as unpatentable over Campau in view of the Complete Car Care                
          Manual, Sasaki and Feigel (Answer, page 3, referring to the                 
          complete exposition of the rejection in Paper No. 7).  We affirm            
          the rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the           
          final Office action (Paper No. 7), the Answer, and for those                
          reasons set forth below.                                                    




               2The examiner has relied upon U.S. Patent 6,354,673 to                 
          Feigel et al. as the “English equivalent” to DE 196 40 767 A1               
          (Paper No. 7, page 2).  Since appellants do not contest that                
          these documents are “equivalent” (see the Brief and Reply Brief             
          in their entirety), for purposes of this appeal and decision, we            
          rely upon and cite from U.S. Patent 6,354,673 as equivalent to              
          “Feigel.”                                                                   
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007