Appeal No. 2000-0513
Application 08/803,047
parent claims. The examiner’s conclusion (see page 4 in the
answer) that the additional display tower characteristics set
forth in these dependent claims would have been obvious
matters of engineering design choice does not cure the above
noted deficiencies in the examiner’s application of Fry
against parent claims 1 and 16.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 6, 20 and 21 as being
unpatentable over Fry.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007