Appeal No. 97-3195
Application 08/387,419
The obviousness issues5
We affirm the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Griffin. The
rejection of independent claim 11 and dependent claims 5, 12
through 14, 16, and 17 is also affirmed since these claims stand
or fall with independent claim 4.
In rejecting claim 4, the examiner relies upon the combined
teachings of Sanders and Griffin as evidence of obviousness.6
Appellant asserts that the Sanders and Griffin patents do not
show or suggest the “banding slots” set forth in claim 4.
However, at this point, we note that the word “slots” in the
5 As earlier indicated, dependent claim 10 stands or falls
with claim 1 from which it depends. We reversed the rejection of
claim 1, supra. In light of the latter reversal, and the
circumstance that Sanders would not have been suggestive of the
divider of claim 1, it follows that the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is also reversed. The same reasoning
applies to claims 6 and 15, each of which depend from claim 1.
Thus, the rejection of each of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
6 It appears to us that claim 4 is readable on the Griffin
document alone (Figs. 7 and 10, channels in reinforcing deck area
ribs are banding slots), as well as on the Sanders’ patent alone
(Fig. 1, holes in the open grid construction can act as banding
slots). Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007