Appeal No. 98-2034
Application No. 08/571,276
corner of the frame board bunched and gathered.
Since all the claim limitations would not have been
taught or suggested by the combined disclosures of Bachrach
and Federbush, it follows that the examiner has not
established the prima facie obviousness of the invention set
forth in claims 1 and 13. See In re Royka, supra.
Accordingly, we cannot support the examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 8, 11 and 12, dependent on claim 1, and claims 18,
22 and 23, dependent on claim 13, contain all of the
limitations of their respective independent claim. Therefore,
we will also not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of these claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims
2-7, 9, 10, 14-17 and 19-21
Our review of Acker, which is used in combination with
Bachrach and Federbush to reject claims 2 through 7, 14
through 17, 20 and 21, and Boelema, which is used in
combination with Bachrach, Federbush and Acker to reject
claims 9, 10 and 19, reveals that these references fail to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007