Appeal No. 2001-2112
Application No. 09/327,922
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
above-noted rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
In considering the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
5, 7, 9 through 11, 14, 16 through 18 and 20 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huber in view of
Powlus, we make the assumption for argument sake that Huber is
analogous prior art. However, after a consideration of the
collective teachings of the applied references, we must agree
with appellant (brief, pages 7-10 and reply brief) that there is
no teaching, suggestion or motivation in either Huber or Powlus
for making the combination asserted by the examiner. Like
appellant, it is our view that the examiner is using the
hindsight benefit of appellant's own disclosure to combine the
animal transportation carrier of Huber with the hunter's blind of
Powlus in an attempt to reconstruct appellant's claimed subject
matter.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in Huber considered together with those of Powlus would not
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007