Appeal No. 97-4205
Application 08/562,853
(6th ed., Rev. 3, Jul. 1997); cf. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892,
894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967) and In re Deters, 515 F.2d
1152, 1156, 185 USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1975). Thus, the relief
sought by the appellant would have properly been presented by a
petition to the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.181.
Each of the above-noted rejections is bottomed on the
examiner’s view that:
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art in view of Veenema
and Markovich to modify the container of
Luisada so the wall panels are permanently
secured to the frame structure as taught by
Veenema and also to include foam beddings
within the container as taught by Markovich
to safely secure the firearm and prevent the
contents from sliding during handling.
[Answer, page 6.]
The examiner also opines that:
Luisada clearly discloses the removable
access panel (114) having a body (116), size
and shape similar to the other panels
(Figures 1 and 10; column 4, lines 13-17).
Luisada also discloses a latch means (89, 92,
96, 98) affixed to the removable access panel
for securing the container. It is submitted
that once the other panels are affixed to the
frame, they are affixed permanently until
disassembled. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to
eliminate latch means from the container of
Luisada so the removable access panel is not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007