Appeal No. 95-2768
Application 08/019,700
summary, we find no teaching or suggestion in Kamaya which would
lead one of ordinary skill to construct the straps in such a
manner as to extend upwardly away from the base of the carrier.
Any such suggestion would be derived solely by impermissible
hindsight, based on appellants’ own disclosure.
The examiner argues that since appellants were permitted to
claim the upward extension of the straps without such limitation
being considered new matter, then the Kamaya straps must be also
interpreted as extending upward. We do not consider this
argument to be pertinent to the question of obviousness.
Moreover, the argument is not well taken in any event because
appellants do disclose the (unfastened) straps 90 extending
upward away from the base 92 in their Figs. 1, 2, 9 and 10,
whereas there is no such disclosure in the Kamaya patent.
We therefore conclude that claims 14, 17, 18, 28 and 30 are
patentable over the references applied.
Claim 29 does not recite that the strap extends upwardly or
away from the base, but does recite that the cradle is ?rotatable
about the axis of its respective supporting arm and held in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007