Appeal No. 2003-0106
Application 09/502,680
examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.1
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the
examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22 and 27 through 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shannon, and the
examiner’s separate rejections of claims 21 through 23 and 25
through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the APA in view of Shannon and claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the APA in view of Shannon and
Pistole, will not be sustained.
1 Also of concern in the present application is the
examiner’s total lack of any specific treatment of the
limitations of claims 23 through 26 on appeal involving
“substantially superimposing one plate over another plate such
that two superimposed plates are supported on the cart” and other
features associated therewith.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007