Appeal No. 97-1393
Application 08/456,349
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
18, filed July 1, 1996) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner’s above-noted rejections will
not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Looking first at the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the collective teachings of
Owens and Tanner, we must agree with appellant (brief, pages
4-11) that there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive in
the applied references, or otherwise specified by the
examiner, which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the rigid support frame (2) of Owens, which is
expressly designed with a pair of spaced side frame members
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007