Appeal No. 99-0612 Page 5
Application No. 08/772,958
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We cannot sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 1, 5 through 8 and 11 through 16.
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite a "braze bracket"
comprising, inter alia, "a mounting plate having a curved
braze surface" and a plurality of tangs "extending
substantially radially from said curved braze surface" and
"spaced along at least one edge of said braze surface". Pauli
discloses a hose guide for guiding a hose around a tire of a
parked vehicle or for storing a coiled hose (see Figures 5 and
6). In rejecting the claims, the examiner implicitly concedes
that Pauli does not disclose a plurality of tangs "spaced
along at least one edge of said braze surface" but asserts
that to space the tangs apart would have been obvious "to make
the device lighter, cheaper or to facilitate cleaning"
(answer, page 3). We do not agree.
Initially, we agree with the appellants (brief, page 15)
that the provision of cut-outs or spaces between segments of
the lip portions (32,33) of Pauli would be undesirable,
because of potential catching or snagging of the hose by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007