Appeal No. 2005-1040 Page 2
Application No. 09/777,420
The Applied Prior Art
The examiner relied upon the following prior art reference of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Ewald 2,286,904 Jun. 16, 1942
Hall 2,403,277 Jul. 2, 1946
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-23, 25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hall.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hall
in view of Ewald.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 26, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief (filed March 15, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 1, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007