Appeal No. 98-0972
Application No. 08/609,550
It is our view that the only suggestion for the proposed
change is found in the hindsight accorded one who first viewed
the appellants’ disclosure, and therefore a prima facie case
of obviousness has not been established by the applied
references. In view of this, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 3-10, which
depend therefrom.
Claim 2 also depends from claim 1. It stands rejected on
the basis of the same three references, taken further with
Nickerson, which was cited for its teaching regarding the use
of apertures and channels. Nickerson fails to alleviate the
deficiency discussed above, however, and therefore we also
will not sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Haase in view of Lloyd forms the basis for the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 11. This claim contains the
same requirement regarding the curvature of the spreader bars
as was present in claim 1, and we reach the same conclusion
with regard to the outcome: A prima facie case of obviousness
is not established by the teachings of these two references,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007