Ex Parte Schmitz - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2004-1207                                                                   Page 2                 
              Application No. 09/759,411                                                                                    


              canceled from the application by direction of the examiner at the conclusion of the                           
              appeal proceedings without further action by appellant (MPEP § 1215.03).                                      
                                                     BACKGROUND                                                             
                     The appellant's invention relates to a washer feeding apparatus for a fastener                         
              driver.  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 of record in rejecting                     
              the appealed claims:                                                                                          
              Pitkin                               3,595,460                    Jul. 27, 1971                               
              Butler                               4,033,499                    Jul.    5, 1977                             
              Young et al. (Young)                 5,014,876                    May 14, 1991                                
              Beach et al. (Beach)                 5,056,684                    Oct.  15, 1991                              
              Lamb                                 6,302,310                    Oct.  16, 2001                              
                                                                        (filed Nov. 12, 1999)                               

                     The following rejections are before us for review.                                                     
                     Claims 1, 4-12, 14 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                             
              unpatentable over Lamb in view of Young.                                                                      
                     Claims 2, 3 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                          
              over Lamb in view of Young and Pitkin.                                                                        
                     Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                              
              Lamb in view of Young and Butler.                                                                             
                     Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                              
              Lamb in view of Young and Beach.                                                                              






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007