Appeal No. 2004-1165 Page 2
Application No. 09/163,042
and 26-29). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Thiebaut 707,183 Aug. 19, 1902
Snyder 1,470,200 Oct. 9, 1923
George 3,235,432 Feb. 15, 1966
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 12-14, 24 and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over George in view of Thiebaut and Snyder.
Claims 19-22 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over George in view of Snyder.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
George in view of Snyder and Thiebaut.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 18 and 23) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 22) for the appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007