Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
Coffey in view of Chatard, depend from claim 1 and further
define the interconnection means for connecting adjacent panel
units along the radial lines of separation. The examiner
relies on Coffey for a teaching of the interconnection means
called for in these dependent claims, and concludes that the
claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious in
view of the combined teachings of Coffey and Chatard. Even if
we were to agree with the examiner that Chatard teaches the
interconnection means of claims 7 and 8, and further agree
that it would have been obvious to provide such
interconnection means in Coffey, Chatard does not render
obvious what we have found to be lacking in Coffey in our
treatment of the standing § 102 rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, the § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 8 will not be
sustained.
Claims 13 and 25-27 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Funke. Claim
13 depends from claim 1 and further sets forth that the
turntable of claim 1 includes means for structurally
connecting the wheel track with the center bearing means.
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007