Appeal No. 2001-2076
Application No. 09/107,057
references which clearly address prior art features found in
appellants' claimed board guide and cabinet. The problem that we
readily perceive however arises when we set aside in our minds
that which appellants have informed us of in the present
application and focus only upon the applied patents themselves.
From that perspective, it becomes clear to us that, absent the
present disclosure, those having ordinary skill in the art simply
would not have derived a suggestion from the overall teachings of
Lit, Brusati (snap-in posts; Figs. 3 and 5), and Thornicroft
(symmetrical support rails 11, 12; Fig.3) to reconfigure the
board guide of Lit according to the examiner's rationale. It is
noteworthy that the aforementioned rationale would necessitate a
major reworking of the Lit board guide by applying particularly
selected features following an ordered sequence not addressed in
the applied prior art (supplemental answer, page 6) to create the
claimed invention. Since the reference teachings by themselves
would not have been suggestive of appellants' invention, the
rejection cannot be sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007