Appeal No. 96-2780
Application 08/162,362
As the examiner’s finding that end bay 22 of Marrujo ‘441 is a
one piece longitudinal member is reasonable and has not been
challenged by objective factual evidence, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 2-
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because we agree with the appellants
that there is no teaching or suggestion in Marrujo ‘441 that the
end bay 22 has bores as required by independent claims 2 and 13.
We observe that the examiner has not directed our attention to
any portion of the Marrujo ‘441 written disclosure which supports
the conclusion that Marrujo ‘441 discloses bores in the
longitudinal members. Figure 2 of Marrujo ‘441, which is
referred to be the examiner, does not in our opinion, depict
bores in end bay 22.
Moscovitch, which was cited in combination with Marrujo ‘441
in rejecting claims 4 and 5 does not cure the deficiencies of
Marrujo ‘441.
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is sustained, the examiner’s rejections of claims
2-15 is not sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007