Appeal No. 1997-2954
Application No. 08/401,876
improper hindsight to come to the conclusion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disparate
teachings of Stone, Otson, Chlosta, Lorch, Fujitsuka, and
Natelson or Yamano to create a transport device like that set
forth in appellants’ claims 22-45 on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 22-24 and claims 25-45 which depend
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Stone in view of Otson, Chlosta, Lorch, Fujitsuka, and
Natelson or Yamano.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007