Appeal No. 95-4134
Application 08/099,090
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 13 through 16
under § 103 as being unpatentable over Bisberg, we note that
these claims each ultimately depend from independent claim 1,
and
thus include all the limitations thereof. Accordingly, it
follows from our determinations above that these dependent
claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art based on the teachings of Bisberg alone, since Bisberg
has no "holder means" like that required in independent claim
1 on appeal, and certainly no teaching or suggestion of such a
"holder means" that also includes a book as set forth in
dependent claim 13 and the claims which depend therefrom.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 13 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We next consider the examiner's rejections under § 103
wherein Garnier, Woodriff and Loudon are the primary
of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the U.S. Claims Court as noted below. See,
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
Twin Disc, Inc. v. U.S., 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986); and In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007