Appeal No. 2005-0489 Page 3
Application No. 10/144,987
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief1 and
reply brief 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.
Claim 28, the only independent claim before us on appeal, reads as follows:
28. In a moving vehicle, the improvement comprising a flag
holder, comprising:
a) an upper fitting and a lower fitting, each including
coupling means for coupling to a separate attachment
location on a leading edge of a flag, banner or pennant;
b) a flagpole mounted on said vehicle and having a
body, an axis of elongation and a length;
c) said upper fitting mounted on said flagpole with an
upper mounting, said upper mounting precluding said upper
fitting from moving along said axis of elongation of said
flagpole;
d) said lower fitting being mounted on said flagpole
body with a lower mounting permitting free movement of said
lower fitting along said length of said flagpole toward said
1 The appeal brief was originally filed on August 12, 2003. A duplicate copy of the appeal brief
was filed on November 4, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007