Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 11
Application No. 08/559,496
of the hose roll. We agree with the appellant that neither Schmitt nor the other references
disclose or teach such structure, and we fail to perceive any suggestion which would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the Schmitt system in such a fashion. The
rejection of claim 49 and claims 50 and 51, which depend therefrom, is not sustained.
Claims 17-23, 34 and 35, all of which are dependent from claim 1, stand rejected
as being unpatentable over the references applied against claim 1, taken further in view of
EO ‘477. The appellant has not challenged the examiner’s position with regard to this
rejection, and therefore we will sustain it.
Likewise, the appellant has not taken issue with the rejection of claims 25-29 on the
basis of the references applied against claim 1, taken further with Pajula, and we will
sustain this rejection, also.
Finally, the examiner has rejected claims 14 and 30-32 as being unpatentable over
the references applied against claim 1, taken further with Laapotti. Again, the appellant
has chosen to allow the examiner’s conclusion to stand uncontroverted, and we shall
sustain this rejection.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-16, 24, 33 and 39-48 as being unpatentable over Schmitt
in view of Wicks, if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of Dorfel or Ely
or Rempel, is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007