Appeal No.97-2716
Application 08/261,772
that is used in an entirely disparate environment from that of
Adams (i.e., to form a venting screen 24 on the sail of a kite-
like flying machine), and there is absolutely nothing in the
combined teachings of Adams, Latimer and Hadzicki which would
fairly suggest making the traffic marker or indicator of Adams of
this lightweight material.
In rejecting independent claim 20 the examiner has
additionally relied on the teachings of Hull; however, the
examiner has only relied on this reference for a teaching of
ground securement means and a storage container.
With respect to Rejections (9) and (10), we have carefully
reviewed the teachings of Wolff and Nowell but find nothing
therein which would overcome the deficiencies of Adams, Latimer,
Hadzicki and Hull that we have noted above. This being the case
we will not sustain Rejection (2) (i.e., claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Adams in view of Latimer, Hull and Hadzicki;
Rejection (9) (i.e., claims 21-23 as being unpatentable over
Adams in view of Latimer, Hull, Hadzicki and Wolff) and Rejection
(10) (i.e., claim 24 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of
Latimer, Hull, Hadzicki and Nowell).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007