Appeal No. 96-1358
Application No. 08/192,055
members in order to allow them a great deal of movement with
respect to one another so that the walkway can operate in the
manner desired.
This being the case, the teachings of the German reference
do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of claim 9, and we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 9 or, it follows, of claims 10-12 and 14,
which depend therefrom.
The last rejection offered by the examiner is that claims 6
and 7, which are in the chain of dependency from claim 1, are
unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of the German
reference and Doyle. The examiner cites Doyle for its teaching
of utilizing a spring-biased latch in the attachment means of the
German reference. Be that as it may, Doyle does not alleviate
the shortcoming we pointed out in the German reference with
regard to claim 1, and therefore these two references fail to
render the subject matter of claims 6 and 7 prima facie obvious.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 is not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007