Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
with the tube-shaped protrusion 16 therein to provide the
separate contacts of the dependent claims 10 and 13 on appeal
apparently make no sense to us from an artisan's perspective. As
noted at the top of page 9 of the principal brief on appeal Léman
already has contact points 3, which the examiner is utilizing in
part as a basis for the claimed 3 contact points. The artisan
would not have been persuaded by Hashimoto to have added
additional electrical contacts for charging purposes to Léman
based upon Hashimoto's teachings. As noted by appellant, the
examiner's reasoning appears to be based on pure prohibited
hindsight.
On the other hand, we note in passing that components 11, 12
and 16 in the Figures 1 and 2 embodiments of Hashimoto appear to
plainly teach only three support elements in a shaped triangular
configuration to the extent required by the independent claims on
appeal.
Finally, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 25
and its respective dependent claims 26 and 27. This rejection,
as set forth by the examiner is logically flawed because
independent claim 25 in part requires an open-front wall, which
feature is plainly not met by Léman alone. Therefore, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007