Appeal No. 97-1777
Application 08/328,708
or rafter end. The appellants have not specifically disputed the examiner’s conclusion that
to provide the rear bar of the Aarons or Wigington apparatus with “holes as a fastening
means and fasteners as desired would have been an obvious mechanical expedient”
(main answer, page 2).
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8 through
11 as being unpatentable over Aarons in view of Wigington.
These claims depend from claim 1 and further define the claimed apparatus as
having first and second cross-rails. According to the examiner,
Aarons shows the claimed apparatus with the exception of the cross rails.
Wigington shows cross-rails at (16,30), configured identical to his cross-
members, to enhance rigidity of his apparatus. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aarons to comprise inner cross
members [sic, rails] as his outer cross members (12) to enhance rigidity of
his apparatus [main answer, page 3].
The appellants contend this rejection is unsound because the proposed combination of
Aarons and Wigington is based on impermissible hindsight and because the interior
braces or cross-rails of the Wigington apparatus could not be physically incorporated into
the Aarons apparatus (see, for example, page 12 in the main brief and page 3 in the reply
brief).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007