Appeal No. 97-1493
Application 08/429,806
In short, these references, taken individually or in
combination with one another, do not teach and would not have
suggested a cargo restraining system having the particular
elements specified in independent claim 12. The examiner’s
various determinations to the contrary (see pages 4 through 8 in
the final rejection) rest on conclusions as to how the prior art
structures “could” function which are completely unsupported by,
and for the most part inconsistent with, the fair teachings and
suggestions of the references.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 12 as being anticipated by Blackburn,
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 13
through 19 as being unpatentable over Blackburn, or the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 through 19 as being
unpatentable over Halliar in view of Blackburn.
In summary, the decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 12 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is affirmed;
b) to reject claims 12 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed;
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007