Appeal No. 2002-0251
Application No. 09/220,170
format claim and what the examiner describes as the "new
limitations" in claim 7, purportedly shown to be Teich, is
improper and unavailing. Moreover, the mere fact that appellants
may have conceded that it is old in the art to secure a three-
point hitch bar to a ballast attachment, e.g., perhaps as shown
and described in Teich (Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 55-59), provides
no basis whatsoever to modify the combination as shown in Teich
to be that which is specifically set forth in appellants' claim 7
on appeal.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in Teich would not have made the subject matter as a whole
of independent claim 7 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellants' invention, we must refuse
to sustain the examiner's rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teich in view of
Nau, we have reviewed the patent to Nau, but find nothing therein
that provides for that which we have indicated above to be
lacking in the examiner's basic rejection based on Teich alone.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007