Ex parte BRANHAM et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 96-2780                                                          
          Application 08/162,362                                                      

          As the examiner’s finding that end bay 22 of Marrujo ‘441 is a              
          one piece longitudinal member is reasonable and has not been                
          challenged by objective factual evidence, we will sustain the               
          examiner’s rejection of claim 17.                                           
               We will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 2-             
          15 under 35 U.S.C.  103 because we agree with the appellants               
          that there is no teaching or suggestion in Marrujo ‘441 that the            
          end bay 22 has bores as required by independent claims 2 and 13.            
          We observe that the examiner has not directed our attention to              
          any portion of the Marrujo ‘441 written disclosure which supports           
          the conclusion that Marrujo ‘441 discloses bores in the                     
          longitudinal members.  Figure 2 of  Marrujo ‘441, which is                  
          referred to be the examiner, does not in our opinion, depict                
          bores in end bay 22.                                                        
               Moscovitch, which was cited in combination with Marrujo ‘441           
          in rejecting claims 4 and 5 does not cure the deficiencies of               
          Marrujo ‘441.                                                               
               In summary, the examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35              
          U.S.C.  102(b) is sustained, the examiner’s rejections of claims           
          2-15 is not sustained.                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007