Appeal No. 1999-1037
Application 08/804,284
impact forces axially to “arms” which may contain “torus
elements” that are squeezed between “two cylindrical tubes” is
vague and ambiguous and cannot reasonably be considered to
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the kind of
modification to Boedecker necessary to arrive at the subject
matter of claim 1. Moreover, it is not clear how the examiner
intends to modify the primary reference in that it is not
clear what constitutes the “bracket” of Boedecker’s structural
reinforcement. In addition, we are in agreement with
appellant’s argument on page 9 of the brief that neither one
of the applied references teaches the claimed telescoping
bracket assembly surrounding a collapsible member. For these
reasons, the standing § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4
cannot be sustained.
Rejection 2
Turning to the examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12 and
15
as being unpatentable over Boedecker in view of Carney ‘112,
the examiner concedes that Boedecker does not disclose
collapsible members having different resistances to crushing,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007