Appeal No. 2001-1682
Application No. 08/837,668
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rice '140
in view of Ludwig. Claims 4 through 9 and 11 through 13 depend
from claim 1, while claims 17 through 22 depend from claim 14.
Further, given our interpretation of the language
"attachment block" as noted above and its direct applicability to
the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bursk in view of Rice '140
and Ludwig, we will likewise not sustain that rejection either.
A review of the collective teachings of Bursk, Rice '140 and
Ludwig does nothing to provide for or overcome the above-noted
deficiency in the prior art with regard to disclosure of a
receiving means in the form of a base plate and an "attachment
block" as required in claims 1 and 10 on appeal.
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007