Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 12
Application No. 08/396,243
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845
F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In our view, the examiner is attempting to expand the meaning
of "cart" beyond all reason. That is, Chandhoke discloses a
stacker 14 which is mounted on wheels and, consistent with the
appellants' specification, we can think of no circumstances
under which one of ordinary skill in this art would construe
Chandhoke's stacker to correspond to a cart as defined by the
claims under consideration. Moreover, there is neither reason
nor need to provide Cardenas with a stacker as taught by
Chandhoke, since Cardenas already has a stacker 10. From our
perspective, the examiner has impermissibly relied upon the
appellants' own teachings for a suggestion to combine the
teachings of Cardenas and Chandhoke in the manner proposed.
With respect to Rejection (4), we have carefully reviewed
the teachings of Schultz but find nothing therein which would
overcome the deficiencies of Cardenas and Chandhoke that we
have noted above.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007