Appeal No. 2001-2185
Application 09/205,079
table is specifically constructed to deal with accidental
spillage in a manner befitting its intended use in an outdoor
setting (see column 1, lines 16 through 19; and column 3,
lines 33 through 36). The reality here is that Montgomery’s
tray table and Pasmore’s can handling device have little in
common in terms of either structure or function, and the
rather specialized can puncturing and plugging characteristics
of Pasmore’s cover 12 have little, if any, relevance to the
beverage cans and/or tumblers intended to be supported on
Montgomery’s tray table.
In this light, it is evident that the examiner has engaged in
an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the appellants’
invention by using the appealed claims as a blueprint to
selectively piece together isolated features in the prior art.
Furthermore, this flaw in the basic Montgomery-Pasmore
combination finds no cure in the examiner’s additional
application of Stern, Lorence or Young.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of independent claim 2 and dependent
claims 3, 4 and 7 as being unpatentable over Montgomery in
view of Pasmore, dependent claim 5 as being unpatentable over
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007