Appeal No. 2004-2304
Application No. 09/886,735
We accordingly consider claims 1, 8, and 12 in this
appeal. We also note that with regard to any dependent
claims, appellants argue the same issue with respect to the
independent claims 1, 8, and 12. Therefore our
consideration of these claims, address any arguments in
connection with any dependant claims and the respective
rejections.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Rinkinen 2,769,250 Nov. 06, 1956
Brunel 4,334,369 Jun. 15, 1982
Ramboz 4,604,817 Aug. 12, 1986
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ramboz.
Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ramboz.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ramboz in view of Rinkinen.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Ramboz in view of Brunel.
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief, the
examiner’s answer, and the prior art of record. This
review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s
rejections are well-founded.
OPINION
In an effort to streamline this decision, our focus is
on the single issue raised in appellants’ brief. This
issue is whether the applied art anticipates or makes
obvious the claim language of a “combination snowshoe and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007