Appeal No. 2002-2143
Application No. 09/482,038
reasonably can be interpreted as embodying shafts of the sort in
question. Hence, it follows that Kelly also fails to meet the
limitations in claims 21 and 38 relating to the support of the
shafts by the horizontal structural members.
The disclosure by Thomas of a vertical windmill 10
comprising a support frame 32, support bars 34 and a rotatable
central shaft 20 carrying air foils 30 does not cure the
foregoing deficiencies of the Kelly assembly relative to the
subject matter recited in claims 21 and 38. The only suggestion
for combining these disparate devices so as to arrive at the
subject matter recited in these claims stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Kelly and Thomas do not
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in independent claims 21 and 38 and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Consequently, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21
and 38, and dependent claims 22 through 37, as being unpatentable
over Kelly in view of Thomas.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007