Appeal No. 2004-1798
Application 08/883,387
building defined in independent claim 27 on appeal, we must
refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of that claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). It follows that the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 28, 29, 31 through 33 and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) on the basis of Livingston likewise will not be
sustained.
Looking next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 34
through 45, 47 through 115, 117 through 155 and 157 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Livingston in view
of Yarnick and Hughes, we note that the disclosures of Yarnick
and Hughes fail to supply or render obvious that which we have
found above to be lacking in Livingston. Accordingly, even if
one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the aspects
of Yarnick and Hughes as relied upon by the examiner with
Livingston, it is clear to us that the particular form of multi-
story building claimed by appellants would not be the result.
Thus, the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 34 through 45,
47 through 115 and 117 through 155 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Yarnick and Hughes
will not be sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007