Appeal No. 1999-1039
Application No. 08/876,762
viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is an
improper basis upon which to base a conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
The shortcomings discussed above with regard to Nilsson
are not alleviated by further considering Volk, which was
applied to dependent claims 3 and 13 for its teaching of
providing bracing means for holding the vertical members of a
supplementary structure upright against the wall of a main
structure.
SUMMARY
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Irwin Charles Cohen )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Neal E. Abrams ) BOARD OF
PATENT
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007