Appeal No. 2005-2393
Application No. 10/228,392
inch metal tip section.
PRIOR ART
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter,
the examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Bayliss et al (Bayliss) 4,563,007 Jan. 7, 1986
Pompa 4,836,545 Jun. 6, 1989
Whitaker 5,505,446 Apr. 9, 1996
Penley 5,924,936 Jul. 20, 1999
Dillard 6,203,447 B1 Mar. 20, 2001
Murtland et al. (Murtland) 6,343,991 B1 Feb. 5, 2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Dillard, Whitaker, Bayliss, Murtland and Pompa.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Dillard, Whitaker, Bayliss,
Murtland, Pompa and Penley.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007