Appeal No. 2000-1488 Page 14
Application No. 08/826,832
those spaces would not have been located on the sides of a
pocket containing a counterweight to define a counterweight
receiving aperture/space as set forth in claims 1, 2 or 11.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claims 1, 2, and 11, and claims
5 and 12 to 16 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Denda in view of Brocklebank and
Hughson is reversed.
Claims 17 and 18
We have also reviewed the references to Washburn and
Yancey additionally applied in the rejection of dependent
claims 17 and 18 but find nothing therein which makes up for
the deficiencies of Denda, Brocklebank and Hughson discussed
above. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Denda in view of
Brocklebank, Hughson and Washburn or Yancey is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007