Appeal No. 98-1049
Application 08/493,463
said first and second upright support pillars, instead of the
“means for securely mounting” as in claim 18. Again, we agree
with appellant that the examiner’s determination that the
locking structure (22) of Steely is a clamp is untenable.
Thus, for the reasons set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the brief,
we will likewise not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
19 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As is apparent from the foregoing, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 18 and 19 of the present
application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007