Appeal No. 1999-0020 Page 5
Application No. 08/641,021
movement. We do not understand the examiner's position to be that Newman would have
suggested also pivotally mounting the transition section (15) to the walls. However, to the
extent that this may have been a component of the examiner's position in rejecting the claims,
we agree with appellant (brief, pages 3 and 4) that the examiner has not adduced any rationale
as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so modify the structure
of Chadshay.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 11 or of claims 12 and 13 which depend therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007