Appeal No. 97-1143
Application 08/115,881
For the reason set forth above, we find that Rice,
Covert, Borgman, Shadel and Berry, taken alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest the inner pipe secured
to the side beams approximately midway between the front and
rear of the base, the
outer pipe rotatably mounted over the inner pipe, and a second
wheel set mounted on the outer pipe as called for in claim 11.
Since all of the limitations of claim 11 would not have
been suggested by the applied prior art, we will not sustain
the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rice in
view of Covert, Borgman, Shadel and Berry.
Since we have determined that the prior art relied on by
the examiner does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, it is unnecessary for this panel to consider
appellants' arguments (main brief, pages 11-14) regarding the
objective evidence of nonobviousness.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
1. Written description requirement
The appellants' specification (page 2) states that
The base incorporates a pair of front legs and three
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007