Appeal No. 1998-2890
Application No. 08/811,142
As should be evident from the claimed subject matter, the
focus is upon the disclosed feature of appellants' invention of a
base that extends beyond the length of a shelter supported
thereon so as to also support a power source.
In the first rejection, the examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to combine "Prior Art" Figs. 1 and 2 and, thus,
yield the now claimed subject matter. We disagree.
As we see it, "Prior Art" Figs. 1 and 2 instruct those
having ordinary skill in the art as to two distinct alternative
options for a transportable shelter facility, i.e., a separate
base 30 and foundation 34 for the shelter 14 and the power source
12, respectively (Fig. 1), and the alternative of a single base
30 with a power source housed within the shelter 14 (Fig. 2).
When we set aside in our minds that which appellants have
taught us in the present application, it becomes quite clear that
only impermissible hindsight would have enabled one having
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007