Appeal No. 2006-0602 2
Application No. 10/260,600
Appellant’s invention is directed to an ice skating arena
having a plurality of adjacent ice rinks (102, 104) and an area
(103) located between the rinks which provides maximum unencumbered
spectator viewing while allowing for a comfortable, climate
controlled environment for the spectators. See particularly,
Figures 3 and 6 of the application drawings. Independent claim 1
is representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
that claim can be found in the Claims Appendix attached to
appellant’s brief.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Martin 6,126,551 Oct. 3, 2000
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Martin.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with respect to the above-noted § 102 rejection and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding that
rejection, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (mailed May
19, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007