Appeal No. 2006-1243 Παγε 2
Application No. 09/955,690
The appellants’ invention relates to a hair clipper attachment that is driven by the
reciprocating blade of the hair clipper (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Prior Art
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 4,031,617 June 28, 1977
The Rejection
Claims 1 to 3, 7, 9 to 11 and 15 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tanaka.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed December 29, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed November 3, 2004) and reply brief (filed January 31,
2005) 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 reference, 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 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007