Appeal No. 1998-1878 Page 16
Application No. 08/543,734
provides a separate steering control from the control handle
which controls the mast functions, as well as, forward/reverse
and vehicle speed. In our view, the examiner has
impermissibly relied upon the appellants’ own teachings in
arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. As the court in
Uniroyal, 837 F.2d at 1051, 5 USPQ2d at 1438 stated "it is
impermissible to use the claims as a frame and the prior art
references as a mosaic to piece together a facsimile of the
claimed invention." Thus, we also agree with the appellants’
argument (brief, pages 8 and 9) that there is no motivation
for combining the references along the lines suggested by the
examiner.
Claims 7 and 17 are dependent on either claim 6 or 16
and contain all of the limitations of their respective parent
claim. Therefore, we will also not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 17.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 6, 7, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007