Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
the art does not automatically render such mechanisms obvious
when combined with the other elements of claim 6.
Since the factual record does not support the
obviousness of independent claim 6 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 based
on Heilig and Schoolman. Since claim 7 depends from
independent claim 6, we also do not sustain the same rejection
with respect to this dependent claim.
With respect to independent claims 9 and 11, the
examiner relies on positions previously discussed. Appellants
point to several features of independent claims 9 and 11 which
they allege are not taught or suggested by the combination of
Heilig and Schoolman. We again agree with the position of
appellants for basically the same reasons we have discussed
above. The record does not support the examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 9 or 11 based on Heilig and Schoolman. Since claims
10, 12 and 13 depend from independent claims 9 or 11, we also
do not sustain the same rejection with respect to these
dependent claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007