Appeal No. 2002-1877
Application No. 09/290,742
As such, we fail to perceive why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to install a latching brace member
on the crossbrace assembly of Jindra, particularly when the
latter assembly appears to already include structure for
maintaining the open position. Additionally, absent
impermissible reliance upon appellant's own disclosure, it is
quite clear to this panel of the Board that one having ordinary
skill in the art would not have derived any suggestion whatsoever
from the evidence of obviousness to remove the gripping latching
channel 40 from the latching brace 32 (Fig. 3) of Orlandino.
Only appellant teaches a support which non-latchingly contacts
and supports an upper end of a cross arm, as now claimed. It is
for the reasons articulated above that the obviousness rejection
on appeal is not sound.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection of appellant's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007