Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/143,977
asserts (brief, page 13) that Hughes does not make up for the deficiencies of Moses,
and (brief, page 14) that Hughes merely teaches a solid member telescopically engaged
with a tubular member. It is argued (id.) that “the structures, their application and
related technologies are totally different and would not render the claimed invention
obvious. Moreover, they would mitigate against their combination.”
From our findings, supra, with respect to claim construction and the teachings of
Moses, and Hughes’ disclosure of a support post or pipe inserted into a tubular member
as part of a support bracket, we agree with the examiner that an artisan would have
been motivated to make the first portion 50 of the telescopic support column of Moses
solid as taught by Hughes and agree with the examiner that making one of the
telescoping members solid would provide strong structural support. The rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moses in view of McClure. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 5) is that Moses does not disclose “fasteners engaging the
coupling and adjustable to compress the coupling, thereby applying frictional force to
the first portion and fixing the first portion to the second portion.” To overcome this
deficiency of Moses, the examiner turns to McClure for a teaching of a coupling having
fasteners to compress the coupling. The examiner’s reasoning is that an artisan would
have been motivated to make the modification because it would enable easy length
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007