Ex Parte STRUMOLO et al - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2005-0994                                                                           Page 2                   
               Application No. 09/432,485                                                                                              



                                                          BACKGROUND                                                                   
                       The appellants' invention relates to a method and system of paint spray particle                                
               trajectory analysis for computer aided vehicle design (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the                             
               claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                              


                       The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                 
               appealed claims are:                                                                                                    
               Strumolo                                5,568,404                               Oct. 22, 1996'                          
               Miller et al. (Miller), "Transient CFD Simulations of a Bell Sprayer," Sept. 1998                                       
               Kinema/SIM Manual, ArSciMed, 1996                                                                                       


                       Claims 1 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                                   
               Miller.                                                                                                                 


                       Claims 1 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                   
               the Kinema/SIM Manual in view of Strumolo or Miller.                                                                    


                       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 December 5, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007