Appeal No. 98-1971
Application 08/575,125
103 as being unpatentable over Garelick in view of Moisan, we
note that the examiner has concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
apparatus of Garelick so as to include a first member, as
claimed, in view of the teachings in Moisan (i.e., elements 59
and 61-64 of Moisan) as such modification would have merely
involved the usage of an old and well known arrangement of
mounting the wheels. After reviewing the teachings of
Garelick and Moisan from the perspective of one of ordinary
skill in the art, we are in full agreement with appellant that
the examiner has improperly relied upon the disclosure of the
present application and appellant's own teachings in
attempting to import the member (59) and wheels from Moisan
into the device of Garelick and in concluding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
modify the apparatus of Garelick in the manner urged above.
Moreover, we share appellant’s view that if the apparatus
of Garelick were modified in the manner posited by the
examiner such modification would destroy the apparatus of
Garelick for its intended purpose and preclude its functioning
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007