Appeal No. 2004-1098
Application No. 09/658,278
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Marcus, the only evidence proffered by
the examiner to support the rejection of claim 16, is completely
devoid of any suggestion to provide the instrument hand cart
disclosed therein with adjustably mounted standards of the sort
recited in this claim.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 16, and dependent claims
17 and 19 through 21, as being unpatentable over Marcus.
Since Legler’s disclosure of a general purpose quick release
locking system does not cure the shortcomings of the Marcus
reference relative to the subject matter recited in parent claim
16, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 18 as being unpatentable over Marcus
in view of Legler.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 16 through 21
is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007