Appeal No. 2001-0217
Application No. 09/186,741
limitation in claim 27 requiring the vertical support member
to be “located off-center and to one side of an attachment
orifice.” These flaws in the basic Ellinwood-Bischof
combination find no cure in the German reference.
Thus, the prior art relied on by the examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter recited in independent claims 18 and 27. 3
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claims 18 and 27, and dependent claims 19
and 24 through 27, as being unpatentable over Ellinwood in
view of Bischof, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 20 through 23, 28 and 29 as being
unpatentable over Ellinwood in view of Bischof and the German
reference.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 27 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed; and
3This being so, it is not necessary to delve into the
merits of the 37 CFR § 1.132 Declaration of Harry W. Eberle,
III, filed November 18, 1999 as part of Paper No. 3, which has
been proffered by the appellant as evidence of non-
obviousness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007