Appeal No. 95-5059
Application 08/157,872
SUMMARY
In formulating the new rejections set forth above, we
considered the arguments presented by the appellant in response
to the examiner’s rejections, as they might apply to the
positions we have taken. They have not dissuaded us, however,
from making these new rejections. We wish to reiterate that the
appellant’s claims are directed to a body extension for use upon
a vehicle, and it is well settled that the manner in which a
device is to be used is not germane to the issue of the
patentability of the device itself. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d
576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967), and In re Otto, 312 F.2d
937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The fact is that the
body extension disclosed in Daimler Benz is capable of being used
in the manner recited in the appellant’s claims.
None of the examiner’s rejections are sustained.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) the following new rejections
are entered:
Claims 1 through 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Daimler Benz.
Claims 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Daimler Benz
and Jacobson.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007