Appeal No. 99-0096
Application 08/640,236
Although the channel-shape crossbar 26 defines an elongated
slot and the telescoping bar 42 is mounted in this slot, the
telescoping bar cannot be secured at any point in the slot as
required by claims 1 and 10. As disclosed, Brosfske’s
telescoping bar can be secured in the crossbar slot only at
the discrete spaced locations defined by the set of pin
assembly holes in the crossbar. Since Brosfske does not
disclose any other structure which meets the claim limitations
in question, the examiner’s finding of anticipation must fall.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 10, and of claims 2 through 7
and 9 which depend from claim 1, as being anticipated by
Brosfske.
In addition to not teaching a combination having an
elongated bar and tie-down bracket as recited in claims 1 and
10, Brosfske would not have suggested same to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we shall not sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 10,
and of dependent claims 2 through 7 and 9, as being obvious
over Brosfske.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007