Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 19
Application No. 08/611,416
blocking element for selectively blocking movement of the arms
towards the working position. Furthermore, Johannsson even
lacks the claimed arms. While Eichenberger teaches a locking
or fastening device 22 (i.e., blocking element) to retain the
struts 14 and 14a (i.e., arms) in position, it is our view
that when Eichenberger's apparatus has been modified by the
teachings of Johannsson as set forth above, the locking or
fastening device 22 would have been eliminated as being
unnecessary as in Johannsson's system.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
As to claims 19 and 20, since the combined teachings of
the applied prior art (i.e., Eichenberger and Smith) are not
suggestive of the features recited in parent claim 1, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. As noted above, Eichenberger
does not teach having the receiving device 6 move towards the
working position. Smith would not have been suggestive of
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007