Appeal No. 2003-0693
Application No. 09/006,248
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellants’ claims 29, 31, 33 and 41.
(7) The § 103 rejection of claims 34, 35 and 42
We do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 34, 35 and 42
as being unpatentable over Blatt ‘276 in view of Kraus and Dailey.
In rejecting these claims, the examiner contends (answer, page
8) that it would have been obvious to make the arms of Blatt ‘276
extendable “since such structure is conventional in arm structure”
and “could be provided by any conventional structure including . .
. [telescoping tubes] and a set screw as used in Kraus (elements 9,
10 and 13).” The examiner further contends that it also would have
been obvious “to use any conventional clamp to attach the gripper
[of Blatt ‘276] to its base including a ball and socket as taught
by Dailey.”
We appreciate that Kraus discloses a work support having an
extendable column 9, 10, and that Dailey discloses a ball joint 90
for attaching the clamp 98 to the shaft member 14. However, like
appellants, we find no basis in these teachings for modifying Blatt
‘276 in the manner proposed by the examiner. Concerning the
examiner’s reliance on Kraus as a teaching for making the arms 16
of Blatt ‘276 extendable, we consider the nonextendable arm 40 of
Kraus, rather than the extendable column 9, 10, as corresponding to
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007