Appeal No. 96-0300
Application 08/090,285
to the extent we just recited in the identified portion of
claim 8.
Additionally, we note that the further statement at col.
14, lines 51 through 57 indicating that the display unit 260
in Figs. 17 and 18 may be utilized in conjunction with other
types of display units illustrated in earlier Figs. 1 through
16 in this reference, there is no indication how the artisan
would have modified the arrangement depicted in the embodiment
shown in Fig. 11, which depicts a mechanically oriented rotary
display unit integrated into the handle of a shopping cart.
Again, these broad teachings would not have led the artisan to
the subject matter as a whole of independent claim 8 on
appeal.
Finally, as to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in light of Malec alone, we sustain this rejection as
set forth by the examiner in the answer. As noted by the
examiner at page 13 of the answer, "appellant failed to
present any arguments relevant to the basis of the rejection,"
the details of which have been set forth at pages 10 and 11 of
the answer. Page 3 of the reply brief makes reference to the
discussion in the principal Brief as to this rejection at page
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007