Appeal No. 2004-0410
Application No. 09/509,415
would militate against the stick or article loading, unloading
and balancing desideratum of Mojden ‘278.
In short, the examiner’s proposed combination of the above
discussed prior art would solve no problem and serve no purpose
relevant to Mojden ‘278 and indeed would be counterproductive to
the objectives of Mojden ‘278. This flaw in the examiner’s
obviousness rationale fatally taints each of the rejections
before us. It follows that we cannot sustain any of the Section
103 rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
OTHER ISSUES
In reviewing the application file record, we observe
numerous informalities in the specification and claims that are
deserving of correction.
For example, the characterizations of drawing figures 1
through 22B on specification pages 4 and 5 do not uniformly
correspond to the actual drawing figures (i.e., figures 1 through
21B-2). Additionally, line 18 on specification page 6 refers to
a figure but does not reveal the number of the figure in question
(i.e., a blank space appears where the figure number should be).
On line 4 of specification page 7, reference is made to figure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007