Appeal No. 97-1393
Application 08/456,349
(3) to allow spanning of a vertical support such as a tree (9)
or pole, to be a single upper arm member like that seen at
(27) of Tanner. Like appellant, we consider that the
modification urged by the examiner would completely eviscerate
the portable game support as described in Owens and that the
examiner’s position regarding modification of the game support
of Owens is a classic example of hindsight reconstruction
based on impermissible hindsight derived from appellant’s own
teachings. For those reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Our review of the Bradley and Ivy patents applied
by the examiner against dependent claims 2 through 8 and 10
through 19 reveals nothing which would alter our view as
expressed above. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejections of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007