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
therefrom.
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,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007