Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
is not well taken.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the § 102
rejection of claims 1, 18 and 30 as being anticipated by
Coffey. Likewise, we will not sustain the § 102 rejection of
claims 3, 5, 11, 16 and 17 that depend from claim 1, or the §
102 rejection of claims 20 and 23 that depend from claim 18.
The § 103 rejection based on Coffey
The examiner acknowledges that Coffey does not disclose
means for elevationally adjusting the support wheels (claims 4
and 19), means for elevationally adjusting the wheel track
(claims 12 and 24), and means on the center bearing for
elevationally adjusting the orientation of the assembled panel
units (claim 14). However, the examiner considers (final
rejection, page 3) that “these means are just obvious design
choices, since it has been held to be within the general skill
of a worker in the art to make structural members adjustable
as a matter of obvious engineering design choice.” The
examiner also tacitly acknowledges that Coffey does not
disclose the panel unit construction called for in claims 32
and 33. Nevertheless, the examiner considers (final
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007