Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
noted structure at the upper right of housing 4 is the only
thing disclosed by Stahlecker which might conceivably be the
claimed "cover extension." However, Stahlecker is so devoid
of disclosure with regard to this structure that we do not
consider that the limitations recited in claim 1 concerning
the cover extension would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art therefrom. Stahlecker does not describe the
structure in the specification, and it is not even clear, for
example, whether or not it is removably attached to the
remainder of housing 4. Moreover, we find no disclosure in
Miyamoto which would supply the noted deficiencies in
Stahlecker. It appears, therefore, that the examiner’s
conclusion that the claimed structure would have been obvious
was based on hindsight gleaned from appellant’s disclosure,
rather than from the teachings of Stahlecker and Miyamoto.
Rejection (2)
Since the deficiencies in the prior art applied in
rejection (1) are not obviated by the additional reference, Le
Chatelier, applied in rejection (2), rejection (2) will
likewise not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007