Appeal No. 97-1974
Application 08/286,696
broadest reasonable interpretation, we consider that the wall
on which Minnick's holder is adapted to be mounted, and with
respect to which it is movable, constitutes a "base", as
claimed.
Appellants' argument (2) is equally unpersuasive. The
examiner found that Minnick's holder could inherently hold a
saucer with a slant portion (final rejection, page 6), and
appellants have not presented anything to prove that this
finding is incorrect. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231
USPQ 136, 138-139 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Rejection (3) will be sustained.
Rejection (4)
In view of our holding, supra, that rejection (1) will be
sustained in view of the indefiniteness of claims 5 to 8, the
rejection of claims 6 to 8 under § 103 will not be sustained,
for the reasons discussed above in connection with our
consideration of the rejection of claims 3 and 5 under § 102.
Here again, however, we emphasize that if the § 112 rejection
of claims 6 to 8 is overcome in any subsequent prosecution,
they may still be unpatentable under § 103.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007