Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
Moreover, even if the artisan would somehow have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Logsdon and Cummings,
these references would, at the most, suggest the orientation
depicted in Fig. 1 of Exhibit A, with the additional feature
of the spur being of such an extent that it could also be
driven into the supporting surface 22 so as to provide
additional lateral support in accordance with Cummings'
teachings.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Logsdon and
Cummings is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JMM:yrt
KLAAS, LAW, O’MEARA and MALKIN
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007