Appeal No. 2003-1327
Application 09/375,713
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in Donovan and Amstutz would not have made the mobile stand
of claims 1, 2 and 6 through 8 on appeal obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention,
we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donovan in view of
Amstutz and Rolnicki, we have additionally reviewed the Rolnicki
patent, but find nothing therein that provides for that which we
have indicated above to be lacking in the examiner’s basic
combination of Donovan and Amstutz. Moreover, we see no basis
whatsoever for even attempting to modify the tractor tire
transport holder of Donovan in light of the “swing-type door
transporting and elevating apparatus” of Rolnicki. Accordingly,
the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007