Appeal No. 1999-0193
Application 08/552,174
clip part (cup-like members 8) so as to arrive at the subject
matter recited in appealed claims 1 and 7. In short, given
the disparities in structure and function, Wilfert’s clip part
and Poupitch’s washer have little, if any, practical relevance
to one another.
Hence, the combined teachings of Wilfert, Noggle and
Poupitch do not warrant the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claims 1 and
7 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 1 and 7, or of dependent claims 2 through 6 and 8
through 10, as being unpatentable over Wilfert in view of
Noggle and Poupitch.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
10 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007