Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
support the appellant’s contention (see page 13 in the main
brief) that holder devices such as those disclosed by Copell do
not require lobes to prevent damage to the articles.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Copell in view of Engvall, and further in view
of Frank and Clay.
The Copell holder device as modified in view of Engvall
meets all of the limitations in claim 20 except or that requiring
each wing portion to taper in cross-section with each free wing
edge formed as an enlarged longitudinally extending lobe.
For the reasons discussed above, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder device
of Copell as modified in view of Engvall by tapering its wing
portions in view of Frank and by terminating same in lobes in
view of Clay, thereby arriving at the holder device recited in
claim 20.
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
5, 7 through 12 and 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed; and
b) new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 7 through
11 and 20 are entered pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007