Appeal No. 1998-2890
Application No. 08/811,142
ordinary skill in the art to derive the presently claimed
invention on the basis of the prior art alternatives of
appellants' Figs. 1 and 2. It is for this reason that we cannot
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the combination of these two
figures.
We direct our attention now to the examiner's second
rejection, which is founded upon "Prior Art" Fig. 2 alone. The
examiner concludes that the content of claims 5 through 8 would
have been obvious, since in Fig. 2 the power source is secured to
the base in an area exteriorly of the shelter (answer, page 6).
We perceive no reasonable basis for the examiner's determination
that "Prior Art" Fig. 2 would have suggested a securing of the
power source to a portion of the base in the exterior area from
the shelter (claim 5) or a single support base having a length
which is greater than the shelter length (claim 7). The
examiner's understanding of claims 5 and 7, and assessment of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007