Appeal No. 98-3288
Application 08/630,304
suggestive of appellants’ invention to one having ordinary
skill in the art. This conclusion is reached by considering
the evidence alone, setting aside what appellants have taught
us in the present application. Without the benefit of
appellant’s teaching, it is clear that the evidence, the
Nilsson document, in particular, would clearly have not been
suggestive of an enclosure comprising side, top and bottom
panel sections being themselves only of corrugated metal and
forming a continuous corrugated structure, as required by
claim 11. It is for this reason that the rejection on appeal
must be reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR 1.196(b), this board enters
the following new ground of rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
as being based upon a specification which lacks descriptive
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007