Appeal No. 2005-1690
Application 10/324,922
Page 4 of the specification more specifically refers to the
invention as “an improved corner bead with paper legs on the
flange forward faces for attaching the bead to a structure.” A
further understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of independent claim 1 on appeal, a copy of which appears
in the Claims Appendix of appellant’s brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Dean 1,608,475 Nov. 23, 1926
Tucker 5,045,374 Sep. 3, 1991
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tucker.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tucker in view of Dean.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed December 20,
2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant’s brief (filed October 18, 2004) and reply brief
(filed February 22, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007