Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 24
Application No. 08/400,129
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 24-25) that it would not
have been obvious to have provided McGuckin's swivel
arrangement 27 in Alexander's line 14 since Alexander already
includes a swivel 16. We do not agree for the following
reasons. First, the McGuckin's swivel arrangement 27 is not
duplicative of Alexander's swivel 16 since each would permit
swiveling about different axes. Second, McGuckin's swivel
arrangement 27 is a known alternative to Alexander's swivel 16
and thus it would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
replaced Alexander's swivel 16 with McGuckin's swivel
arrangement 27.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 11
The appellant has grouped claims 9 and 11 as standing or
falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR7
7See page 7 of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007