Appeal No. 98-0972
Application No. 08/609,550
and we will not sustain the rejection. The same is true with
regard to dependent claims 12 and 14-19.
Claims 13 and 20 also depend from claim 11, and they
stand rejected as being unpatentable over Haase, Lloyd and
Palmer. Palmer discloses spreader bars having the same
vertical curvature that is present in Haase, and therefore it
fails to cure the deficiency discussed above with regard to
claim 1. Again, a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established, and the rejection of these claims will not
be sustained.
SUMMARY
The provisional rejection of claims 21 and 22 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is sustained.
None of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007