Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 14
Application No. 08/396,243
modification needed to arrive at the claimed invention (see,
e.g., In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)). As we have noted above in Rejections (3) and (4),
Chandhoke discloses a stacker and not a "cart" as the examiner
asserts, and there is simply nothing which would fairly suggest
providing Chandhoke with a second stacking face.
With respect to Rejections (6) and (7), we have carefully
reviewed the teachings of Anderson and Schultz, but find noth-
ing therein which would overcome the deficiency of Chandhoke
that we have noted above.
In summary:
With respect to Rejection (1), the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Cardenas and
Breski is (a) affirmed with respect to claims 1 and 10 and (b)
reversed with respect to claims 6, 8 and 9.
Rejections (2) through (7) are all reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007