Appeal No. 1999-0439
Application 08/652,908
deficiency of Thompson discussed above, we also do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 11.
Claim 33 is an independent claim which is rejected on
the collective teachings of Thompson and Robbins. The
examiner acknowledges that Thompson does not teach the first
and second orientations which result in first and second
oblique angles as recited in claim 33. The examiner cites
Robbins as teaching an adapter which can be mounted in two
orientations to yield two oblique angles. The examiner
proposes to use the Robbins oblique surface with the Thompson
adapter [answer, pages 7-8].
Appellants argue that the combination of Robbins with
Thompson gives only a single angular orientation rather than
two as claimed [brief, page 6]. Appellants also argue that
Robbins teaches away from an upwardly facing orientation
because Robbins is attempting to make the electrical box
waterproof and an upwardly facing orientation would defeat
that purpose [reply brief, pages 3-4].
We agree with the position argued by appellants for
the reasons set forth in the briefs. The collective teachings
of Thompson and Robbins do not suggest the two orientations
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007