Appeal No. 96-1303
Application 08/098,516
substituting Caveney’s connection means for that of Hopkins,
as proposed by the examiner. The structure and operation of
the devices of these two references are so disparate
that in our view one of ordinary skill would derive no
suggestion or motivation from Caveney to modify the attachment
portion of Hopkins.
The rejection accordingly will not be sustained.
Rejections (2)(b) to (2)(g)
None of the additional references applied in these
rejections overcomes the deficiencies noted above in the
combination of Hopkins and Caveney. These rejections will
likewise not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 30 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007