Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
The obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 12
based on Lund, Reinhardt and Hofmann
The examiner’s reliance on the wooden or light metal rail
elements (translation, page 2) of Hofmann for a teaching of
providing reinforcing straps affixed to and extending between
opposite sides of the bottom wall of cover of the modified
Lund device is strained. As aptly noted by appellant on page
9 of the brief, the purpose of the rails in Hofmann is to tie
together a pair of innertubes in side-by-side relationship,
which purpose is simply not germane to Lund and/or Reinhardt.
Absent appellant’s own teachings, we can think of no cogent
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to incorporate Hofmann’s rails in the Lund/Reinhardt
combination. The § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 12 therefore
will not be sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10
based on Lund, Reinhardt, Hofmann and Hoenstine
The additional teachings of Hoenstine applied in this
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007