Appeal No. 2004-1701
Application No. 09/697,647 Page 4
motorcycle gas tank. While suction cups may be well known for
use in attachment of other items to other portions of a different
type of vehicle, such as an automobile as acknowledged by
appellant (4th page of the brief), the examiner has not fairly
explained how those other uses of suction cups would have
reasonably led one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a
plurality of suction cup connectors arranged as here claimed as a
substitute for a nuts and bolt arrangement for holding Thurm’s
motorcycle gas tank covers in place. Moreover, the examiner has
not explained why Wagner, even if considered combinable with
Thurm, would have suggested the here claimed covers, “each of
which is shaped to substantially conform to and bound a
respective side frontal portion of the fuel tank...” and that are
constructed as being solely attachable by a plurality of suction
cup connectors in use. In this regard, Wagner teaches using a
locking device in addition to suction cups for a side door bumper
as noted by appellant and Thurm dislcoses a motorcycle gas tank
cover that generally conforms to the shape of a gas tank, not
shaped to conform to and form a boundary of “a side frontal
portion of the fuel tank” (emphasis added).
The examiner must provide specific reasons or suggestions
for combining the particular teachings and disclosures of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007