Appeal No. 97-4158
Application No. 08/515,218
retention systems by means of the same operating arm, and
therefore they would have provided no suggestion to modify
Bruder in the manner proposed by the examiner.
For the reasons expressed above, it is our opinion that
the combined teachings of the references fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 41, and we will not sustain the
rejection of this claim or of the claims that depend
therefrom. Since this limitation also appears in independent
claims 48 and 55, the same holds true for them and for their
dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007