Appeal No. 97-2722 Page 12
Application No. 08/329,840
supporting arm may store articles therein as taught by
Shockley.
Based on our analysis and review of Laiti and claim 2, it
is our opinion that one additional difference is the
limitation that the hollow body is made of rigid, metal
material.
With regard to this additional difference, we have
determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the appellant's invention to
have made Laiti's tubular supporting arm from a rigid, metal
material as suggested by Laiti's teaching that the supporting
arm 3 may be a shaped metal and may be soldered to the tube 2.
Claims 4 through 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Laiti in view of Shockley as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bass.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007