Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
The examiner justifies the proposed combination of Wolsh in
view of Clay (rejection e) by concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the truss-
engaging clip portion of Wolsh’s molded plastic pipe-holding
device by configuring it in accordance with the suitcase-engaging
clip portion of Clay’s metallic strip umbrella-holding device “to
better hold the [Wolsh] device adjacent another member” (main
answer, page 5). The examiner does not explain, however, nor do
Wolsh and Clay teach or suggest, why such a modification would
enhance the clip portion of Wolsh’s device.
Finally, the examiner justifies the proposed combination of
Engvall in view of Clay (rejection h) by concluding that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the holder device disclosed by Engvall by incorporating lobes as
in Clay to provide the device with a more secure retention
capability. Here again, however, Clay does not teach or suggest
that the lobes on the device disclosed therein provide this
capability.
The following rejections are entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 1, 2 and 7 through 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Copell in view of Engvall.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007