Appeal No. 1997-2878
Application No. 08/287,505
slidable along a cooperating rib provided in the base member
which is, again contrary to the teaching of the instant
invention.
The problem with these arguments by appellant is that
they are not directed to the claimed invention. Appellant has
pointed to no language in the claims which distinguish over
what is disclosed and suggested by Hampton. The arguments are
directed only to various differences between Hampton and the
instant disclosed invention. Moreover, to the extent that
there are differences between the instant claimed invention
and that taught by Hampton, appellant has only pointed to
perceived differences without any argument as to why such
perceived differences make the instant claimed invention
patentable over Hampton, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103. After all, the examiner made the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, rather than § 102, because there are recognized
differences but appellant has not addressed the obviousness
issue under 35 U.S.C. § 103 anent the instant claimed subject
matter.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 3
through 5 and 7 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hampton.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007