Appeal No. 1999-0286 Page 13
Application No. 08/777,413
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4 to 6 and
9 to 19 as being unpatentable over Hendricks in view of Wiese.
It is our opinion that the appellant (brief, pp. 21-22)
is correct that there is no reason/suggestion/motivation for
combining Hendricks and Wiese in the manner set forth in this
rejection. That is, we see no reason absent the use of
impermissible hindsight to have provided Hendricks' deck
member 24 with a plurality of mounting holes formed in an
orderly rank and file configuration.
Since all the limitations of claims 1, 4 to 6 and 9 to 19
would not have been suggested by the applied prior for the
reasons stated above, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 4 to 6 and 9 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007