Appeal No. 98-1256
Application No. 08/599,934
will sustain the rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Loggins and Martin.
Rejection (3)
With respect to claim 20 the appellant argues that the prior art does not suggest a first riser
attached to the outrigger and a second riser attached to the elongated member. We agree. Loggins,
Martin and Nichols all have single risers. While Anderson teaches two risers, both are connected to
an elongated member. There is simply nothing relied on in the prior art which would fairly suggest
attaching a first riser to an outrigger and a second riser to an elongated member. This being the case,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Loggins, Nichols, Martin and Anderson.
As to claim 21 the appellant argues there is no suggestion to combine the teachings of the
references. We do not agree. First, we observe that in Fig. 1 Loggins discloses an elongated member
22a having a straight edge, an outrigger 28a and a "first" riser 32a which is attached to the elongated
member 22a. Thus, we find response in Loggins for all the limitations set forth in claim 21 and conclude
that this claim lacks novelty. While we appreciate the fact that the examiner described the rejection in
terms of obviousness rather than lack of novelty, we note that lack of novelty is the epitome of
obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982). Second,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007