Appeal No. 2004-0193 Page 12
Application No. 09/165,272
obviousness of claims 16 and 33 in the response to arguments section of the answer4
(p. 5), the teachings of Riccardo do not suggest more than two support elements (i.e.,
guide member supports). The examiner's determination to provide Riccardo with more
than two support elements has not been supported by any evidence that would have led
an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
independent claims 15, 16 and 33, and claims 17 to 19, 21, 24, 29 and 34 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
4 The examiner stated that '[b]y extending the shaft of Riccardo from the upper end (ref, numeral 8
in Riccardo['s] figure 1 [)], it would have been obvious to add another guide support in order to handle
more reels."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007