Appeal No. 98-1256
Application No. 08/599,934
we agree with the examiner that the member 24b of Loggins can also be considered to be the elongated
member and that a combined consideration of Loggins and Martin would have fairly suggested that the
attachment of the riser along (1) one leg of a triangular-shaped guide (Loggins, Figs. 2 and 3) or (2) the
hypotenuse of a triangular-shaped guide (Martin, Fig. 1) are art-recognized alternative which would
have been obvious. While the examiner has relied on Nichols for a teaching of attaching the riser to the
outrigger and Anderson for a teaching of first and second risers, neither of these limitations appear in
claim 21. For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) based on the combined teachings of Loggins, Nichols, Martin and Anderson.
Rejection (4)
Initially we note that on page 11 of the brief the appellant argues that claims 22, 24, 25 and 28
"are allowable as depending
from the independent claim 13." We observe, however, that claim 24 depends from claim 18, rather
than claim 13.
The appellant argues that Anderson teaches away from the claimed invention since the handle
thereof is turned 90E "from the handle of claim 24." We must point out, however, that claim 24 merely3
3As to the specific question of “teaching away,” our reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994) stated:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007