Appeal No. 98-1049
Application 08/493,463
like that required in appellant’s claim 18 on appeal. The
examiner’s position that the locking structure (22) of Steely
is “an equivalent mounting means which performs the same
function as that of the disclosed invention’s means” (final
rejection, page 3) is entirely untenable. Both the structure
and function of the locking device (22) of Steely are entirely
different than the clamping arrangement disclosed and claimed
by appellant or any equivalents thereof. Thus, even if one
were to modify the serving table or cart of Karoff to have a
locking structure like that of Steely, the resulting table
or cart would not be responsive to the picnic caddy as defined
in appellant’s claim 18 on appeal. For this reason, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Karoff and
Steely will not be sustained.
Independent claim 19 on appeal differs from claim 18
in that it specifically recites a “clamp” arranged at one end
of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007