Ex parte BERENDS et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1999-0195                                                        
          Application 08/507,424                                                      

          the manner proposed by the examiner.  It appears to us that                 
          the only suggestion for doing so is found in the hindsight                  
          accorded one who first viewed appellants’ disclosure.  This,                
          of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection under 35                   
          U.S.C.  103.  See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23                    
          USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                         
               In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the                     
          standing rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-8 that depend                    

                                    Claims 14-16                                      
               Claim 14 requires, inter alia, that the wheel block be                 
          mounted “for substantially linear movement relative to [the]                
          carriage in a direction substantially perpendicular to the                  
          lengthwise direction.”  The examiner, noting that the wheel                 
          blocking means of Blunden and Cone swing in an arcuate path                 
          through an arch of about 90E in the course of being deployed,               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007