Appeal No. 2003-0679 Page 6
Application No. 09/730,163
mowing units are respectively mounted on opposite sides of the central frame. Thus,
Freudendahl lacks the claimed "support structure mounting said at least one swath
former to said frame, exclusive of said one of said pair of mowing units."
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are not met by Freudendahl for the reasons
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject independent claim 1, and claim 3
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 2
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freudendahl in view of Carmichael.
We have reviewed the reference to Carmichael additionally applied in the
rejection of claim 2 (dependent on claim 1) but find nothing therein which makes up for
the deficiency of Freudendahl discussed above regarding claim 1. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 1
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art in view of Welsch.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007