Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
non-latchingly contacts and supports the top portion of the
remaining cross arm.
Applying the evidence of obviousness, the examiner concludes
(Paper No. 16; page 3) that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to install the support
(latching brace member 32) of Orlandino onto the crossbrace
assembly disclosed in Jindra (Figs. 2,3). In the answer (page
5), the examiner additionally determines that it would have been
obvious to remove the gripping channel 40 from the latching brace
member of Orlandino so that the crossbrace arms only sit upon the
brace member 32.
Simply stated, the applied evidence does not support the
examiner's conclusion of obviousness. When we set aside in our
minds that which appellant teaches us in the present application,
and focus just upon the combined teachings of Jindra and
Orlandino, it at once becomes apparent to us that the reference
patents would not have been suggestive of the now claimed
invention. From our perspective, each of Jindra (Figs. 2 and 3)
and Orlandino (Figs. 1 and 2) teach alternative folding
configurations which are distinctly different from one another.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007