Appeal No. 96-1293
Application 07/998,673
be transported on transport means in a completed form" (claim 1,
line 3, emphasis added), not to the combination of a building
structure and a transport means as appellant seems to believe.
Thus, the recitation of the details of the transporting means in
claims 14 through 17 does not further limit or define the
building structure itself in any patentable sense, except to the
extent that the building structure must be capable of use with a
transport means like that set forth in claims 14 through 17.
Since it is clear to us that the pre-assembled, relocatable
building structure of the combination of Ziegelman and Patena is
capable of use with a transport means like that set forth in
claims 14 through 17, it follows that these claims do not add
anything to the claimed building structure which is not also
found in Ziegelman as modified by Patena. Accordingly, the
examiner's rejection of claims 14 through 17 will be sustained.
Based on a consideration of the foregoing, we are
led to conclude that the examiner has made out a proper case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of appellant's
claims 1, 4 through 6 and 14 through 19 on appeal. Accordingly,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007