Appeal No. 97-4182
Application 08/429,150
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the British patent in view of Hibbert, it
is the examiner’s position that:
[The] British publication shows a rain fly 4
having 2 guy ropes (14) attached to each corner and
ground anchor as shown in fig. 1, poles (6) support the
ridge end of the fly. [The] British publication does
not show a canopy supported by the rain fly. However,
Hibbert teaches attaching a canopy (20) to the rain fly
(22) to form a tent structure. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide
[the] British publication ’552 with a canopy supported
by the rain fly as taught by Hibbert to form a tent
structure. [Final rejection, page 4.]
The examiner’s position is not sustainable. Claim 1
expressly requires that the erected fly form a structure
“entirely supporting and sheltering a fabric canopy that is
suspended beneath it” (lines 37 and 38). Even if we were to
agree with the examiner that the awning 22 of Hibbert can be
considered to be a “fly,” there is absolutely nothing in the
combined teachings of the British patent and Hibbert which would
suggest an arrangement wherein an erected fly forms a structure
that entirely supports the canopy. In the British patent there
is no canopy whatsoever. In Hibbert the canopy is entirely
supported by end frame members 15, with the canopy and end frame
members in turn supporting the awning 22. This being the case,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007