Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
5. Claims 16, 25, 34, 46, 71, and 77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schwartz and Rivard.
6. Claims 43, 48-51, 54-58, 65, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nickerson and Schwartz.
7. Claims 23, 31, 33, 37-39, 41, 58, 61, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rivard and Schwartz.
8. Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rivard, Schwartz, and Nickerson.
9. Claims 52 and 79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schwartz.
ISSUES
The Appellant contends that Borst does not disclose a grommet and spacer
section with means for engaging an arm (claims 81, 87, and 91) (Appeal Br. 10).
The Examiner found that Borst discloses a grommet 18 and a spacer section 9, 11,
18, and 19 with means for engaging an arm 13 (Answer 3-4). The issue before us
is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Borst
discloses a grommet and spacer section with means for engaging an arm.
The Appellant also contends that neither Borst nor the remaining references
teaches, suggests, or provides a motivation to modify the sleeve nut and grommet
of Borst as claimed (claim 90) (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to modify the sleeve nut and grommet of Borst with a
cup-shaped head and curved surface “so as to improve operability and to facilitate
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013