Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
horizontally offset from and fixed relative to the lower object
supporting surface, and independent claim 11 requires a blade
comprising an upper object supporting surface horizontally offset
from and fixed relative to a lower object supporting surface.
Independent claim 16 contains similar limitations. According to
the examiner, Araki’s support frame 56a, arm 54 and arm 52
respectively constitute such a blade, upper platform/supporting
surface and lower platform/supporting surface. These findings
are clearly flawed, however, because Araki’s support frame 56a,
arm 54 and arm 52 are separate, distinct and independently
movable elements which cannot reasonably be construed as
embodying a blade of the sort recited in claims 1, 11 and 16.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 11 and 16, and dependent claims
2, 5 through 10, 12 and 18 through 21 as being anticipated by
Araki.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 13 through 15,
17 and 22 through 25 as being unpatentable over Araki
Independent claims 22 and 25 contain blade limitations
similar to those recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 16. For
the reasons discussed above, Araki does not meet these
limitations. As Araki also would not have suggested an apparatus
or method encompassing such a blade, we shall not sustain the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007