Appeal No. 1999-1542
Application No. 08/806,864
Of the first group we take the broad claim 21 as
representative, rather than the narrow claim 12 which has been
discussed by the Appellants in detail. However, we find that
the arguments made in regard to claim 12 are equally applicable
to claim 21.
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds, answer at page
3, that “[h]owever, Yoneoka et al does not show the U-shaped
rail having a tapered cross rail, a center rail (common rail
that creates two U-shaped rails), and offset side rails from the
trailing edge that are shorter than the progressive-elevation
side rails.” The Examiner then goes to Le Van to provide the
slider
of Yoneoka with the recited tapered cross rail, a center rail,
and the side rails. Furthermore, the Examiner relies on Chhabra
to shorten the side rails of Yoneoka. In light of Yoneoka’s
disclosure and the miscellaneous teachings of Le Van and Chhabra
(answer at pages 3, 4, and 5), the Examiner has made a detailed
effort to justify each of the modifications in alleging that
these changes would have been obvious to an artisan. Appellants
challenge the findings of the Examiner. For example, Appellants
contend that Le Van does not teach the proper sizing of side
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007