Appeal No. 2004-1207 Page 3
Application No. 09/759,411
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed August 26, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed July 21, 2003) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to appellant’s claim 1. We observe, at the outset, that,
although the preamble of claim 1 is directed to washer feeding apparatus for a fastener
driver having a stroke axis and an exit barrel, recitation in the body of the claim of “said
retention chamber having an exit aperture aligned with the exit barrel and arranged
such that a washer retained therein is in alignment with the fastener driver exit barrel
and with said exit aperture” indicates that the claim is in fact directed to a washer
feeding apparatus in combination with a fastener driver.1 In reviewing this appeal,
therefore, we consider claim 1 to be directed to such combination. Further, consistent
1 We leave it to the examiner and appellant to consider whether amendment of the preamble of
claim 1 to be consistent with the scope of the body of the claim is in order.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007