Appeal No. 2005-1051 3
Application No. 09/788,147
Parisotto 5,768,806 Jun. 23, 1998
Pavone 6,009,637 Jan. 04, 2000
Schenkel, Brazilian 9800597-9 Nov. 30, 1999
Patent Document2
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 22, 23 and 26
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Schenkel.
Claims 1, 4 through 6, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fuerst.
Claims 1 through 4, 11, 15 and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Preston in view of
Fuerst.
Claims 1 and 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duclos in view of Fuerst.
Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parisotto in view of Fuerst.
2 Our understanding of the Brazilian document stems from U.S.
Patent No. 6,418,641 to Schenkel which is an English language
equivalent. Consistent with the arguments advanced by both the
appellant and the examiner, our discussion of the Brazilian
document will be in terms of the U.S. patent which is itself
prior art to the appellant’s invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007