Appeal No. 2004-2161 Page 2
Application No. 10/028,875
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an assembly for limiting the movement of
one body with respect to another. 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:
Beals et al. (Beals) 5,433,516 Jul. 18, 1995
Greenheck et al. (Greenheck) 6,547,289 B1 Apr. 15, 2003
(filed Nov. 8, 2000)
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14 and 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Beals.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beals in view of Greenheck.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed Dec. 16, 2003) and the final rejection (mailed July 31, 2003) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (received Oct. 31, 2003) and
Reply Brief (received Apr. 19, 2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007