Appeal No. 2004-1920 Page 2 Application No. 09/302,1999 BACKGROUND The appellant's invention relates to an impact tool in combination with a hollow pole. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the Brief. The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are: Moeller 2,572,370 Oct. 23, 1951 Pesaturo 2,759,486 Aug. 21, 1956 De Rosa et al. (De Rosa) 4,836,232 Jun. 6, 1989 Reed et al. (Reed) 4,920,897 May 1, 1990 The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) Claims 1, 6-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 on the basis of Moeller in view of De Rosa and Pesaturo. (2) Claims 1-5, 13-15 and 18 on the basis of De Rosa in view of Pesaturo and Moeller. (3) Claim 18 on the basis of De Rosa in view of Pesaturo, Moeller and Reed. (4) Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 on the basis of Pesaturo in view of De Rosa and Moeller. (5) Claim 18 on the basis of Pesaturo in view of De Rosa, Moeller and Reed. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper No. 24) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 23) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 25) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007