Appeal No. 2000-0504
Application 08/799,898
second paragraph as indefinite.
Finally, with respect to claims 21 through 23, rejected
as unpatentable over Riccio in view of Mahannah, we will not
sustain the rejection of these claims. While we agree that
Mahannah discloses a pivotally mounted extension at E and 22,
which is attached to the inner slideable member, we are of the
view that it would not have been obvious to provide such a
pivotal connection in the Christmas tree holder of Riccio. In
Riccio, the two clamping structures are designed to clamp a
colinearly extending trunk. The use of a pivot to somehow
change the orientation of the clamp means is antithetical to
this teaching in Riccio. Therefore, we must conclude that
this combination of references is based on hindsight
reconstruction. Such hindsight reconstruction is
impermissible in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
is reversed. The rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as unpatentable over Jones is affirmed, and
the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Jones is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007