Appeal No. 2006-1296 Page 2
Application No. 10/759,873
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a seismic adaptor for attachment to one beam of a
steel web joist (present specification, p. 2). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Steinke 4,408,928 Oct. 11, 1983
Rebentisch 4,784,552 Nov. 15, 1988
Koyama 5,259,165 Nov. 9, 1993
Kirschner US 6,749,359 B1 Jun. 15, 2004
Appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA), as represented by IDS filed Jul. 30, 2001 in parent
Application No. 09/844,807 (issued as US 6,749,359), copy appended to examiner’s answer
(mailed September 19, 2005)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of Kirschner in view of Rebentisch.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in
view of Koyama and Rebentisch.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view
of Koyama, Rebentisch and Steinke.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed July 5, 2005) for
the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007