Appeal No. 2005-0482 Page 2
Application No. 09/875,787
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a battery terminal for an automotive battery
and a method for its installation on the battery case. A copy of the claims under appeal
is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art reference in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Hollis et al. (Hollis) 3,849,203 Nov. 19, 1974
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-10, 13, 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hollis.
Claims 11, 12, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hollis.
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 August 13, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed May 28, 2004) and reply brief (filed September 10,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007