Appeal No. 2003-0371 Page 6
Application No. 09/465,941
Claim 10 adds to claim 9 the requirement that each holder on the elongate
members overlaps an adjacent holder to provide a staggered holder arrangement.
Such is not disclosed or taught by Woods, however, and therefore we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claim 11 also depends from claim 9, and recites that the holders on one of the
spaced apart elongate members are aligned with the corresponding holders on an
adjacent elongate member. This is disclosed in Woods in Figure 4-6 and 11, and we
will sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 14 is not a method claim, and does not require that the stringers be
transported, as the appellant implies in his arguments (Brief, page 16). The claims
states only that the holders and a stringer supported thereby be assembled “for”
transport as a package. In this regard, the Wood device loaded with stringers can be
transported “as a package,” as is shown in Figure 1, and thus meets the terms of this
claim. Claims 15 and 16 are dependent from claim 14, and the appellant has chosen
not to argue their separate patentability over the applied references. The rejection of
claims 14-16 is sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007