Appeal No. 96-0300
Application 08/090,285
extends upwardly from the handle 262 so as to avoid
interference during nesting of the shopping carts for storage
purposes." Certainly, without additional teachings from other
references or a more persuasive rationale of the examiner, we
find that based on these teachings the position of the
examiner alternatively would not have been sustainable in the
absence of some other evidence or line of reasoning which
would have indicated a different physical arrangement to
permit or overcome the nesting teaching just noted.
Turning next to the rejection of independent claim 8 and
its respective dependent claims in light of Tannehill in view
of Vela, with additional dependent claim 10 further rejected
on the basis of this combination of references, further in
view of Hayasaka, we reverse the rejection of each of these
claims. As to this rejection the examiner’s analysis begins
with Tannehill with additional complementary teachings urged
to be found in Vela in the same portions just discussed with
respect to this reference alone as to claim 22.
As to independent claim 8, the examiner’s position is
expressed at pages 7 and 8 of the answer. The examiner’s
reasoning appears to make reference to different embodiments
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007