Appeal No. 97-0933
Application No. 08/200,118
on a stem. Be that as it may, it is our view that Bolesky
fails to alleviate the shortcoming we have pointed out above
in Slamin, namely, the lack of an offset attaching bolt.
Claims 4 through 7 are dependent from claim 1, and stand
rejected as being unpatentable over Slamin. Again, the
failure of Slamin to disclose or teach the required offset
bolt recited in independent claim 1 rears its head. It is our
opinion that this rejection fails at the outset on that
ground, for lacking the required offset teaching Slamin fails
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of independent claim 1 which, of course,
forms a part of dependent claims 4-7.
The rejection of claims 4-7 is not sustained.
SUMMARY
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007