Appeal No. 98-1461 Page 9
Application No. 08/335,153
claimed "cutting means" is not readable on the bolts 50 of
Bronstad since the bolts 50 will shred out rail material, not
"cut" the rail material.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 17, 20 through 22 and 25 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 19
through 22, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner's rejection is premised on the theory that
Bronstad discloses "cutting means" and that it would have been
obvious to add those "cutting means" to the guardrail terminal
of Sicking. However, this rejection must fail since Bronstad
does not disclose "cutting means" as recited in the claims
under appeal for the reasons pointed out above. Thus, the
combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007