Appeal No. 97-1775
Application No. 08/500,740
In view of this disclosure, we agree with the examiner that
McGuire provides ample motivation and suggestion to one of
ordinary skill in the art to include protruding elements on the
jaws 8, 10 of the Evels apparatus. A vehicle roof luggage
carrier as disclosed by Evels will naturally encounter a great
many “temperature fluctuations” during use, and it would be but
an obvious application of the teaching of McGuire to utilize
protruding elements in order to enhance the ability of the Evels
clamping device 2 to grip pipe 3 during such fluctuations. The
reason for modifying the Evels apparatus thus comes from the
teaching of the prior art (McGuire), rather than from appellant’s
own disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed, and to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) and claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007