Appeal No. 2000-2147
Application No. 08/835,709
(answer, page 6) that Wegmann discloses a raceway with sloped
sides 15 “so that vehicles or pedestrians can cross over the
raceway without incident.” Appellant’s arguments (brief, pages
12 through 14) to the contrary notwithstanding, the examiner has
provided motivation (i.e., to allow vehicles or pedestrians to
cross over a raceway “without incident”) for combining the
teachings of the references. Since “traffic” crossings discussed
in Wegmann may be cart traffic in an office environment, we agree
with the examiner (answer, pages 6 and 7) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to provide the
raceway of Batty et al. with a sloping side . . . in order to
facilitate walking or driving a vehicle over the raceway in view
of the teaching of Wegmann, Jr.” As indicated supra, any
limitation of claim 13 that is couched in language that calls for
a future action or an intended use can not be used to
differentiate the claimed invention over the applied prior art.
For this reason, the limitation “to integrate said raceway and
said floor cover” does not differentiate the claimed invention
over the applied prior art because the fastener and the housing
are claimed as merely “capable of cooperating” to perform the
noted function. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007