Appeal No. 2000-1514 Page 7
Application No. 09/038,450
and therefore is not, in our view, positioned on and above the
driveway 4.
Since all the limitations of claim 19, and claim 20
dependent thereon, are not disclosed in Warner for the reasons
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 12 and
14 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In making the rejection of claims 1 to 12 and 14 to 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner ascertained (answer, p. 4)
that Springer taught all the limitations of independent claims
1, 7 and 12 except for the placement of the power mechanism
"as being outboard of an outer edge of the chock path." With
regard to this difference, the examiner then determined that
the power mechanism of Springer (i.e., motor 16) "would have
been capable of being used located outboard of an outer edge
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007