Appeal No. 2004-1892
Application No. 10/197,472
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We cannot sustain the obviousness rejection.
Claim 27, the sole independent claim on appeal, is drawn to
a boat windshield bottom trim element comprising, inter alia, a
middle portion including a fastener-receiving side opening.
Like appellants' bottom trim element, the extruded mounting
member M of Muhlberger is secured to a boat (Figs. 1 and 3) and
receives the bottom of a boat windshield W. However, Muhlberger
does not teach a bottom trim element with any structure
whatsoever (in a middle portion or otherwise) for association
with a boat canopy or cover. On the other hand, Vadney discloses
an extruded frame 16 (Figs. 1 and 2) that receives the top of a
boat windshield 17 and further includes a side opening receiving
fasteners for securing a boat top 11. We note that the frame of
Vadney is not connected to a boat and that the windshield is not
covered by the boat top. As we see it, the Vadney disclosure
would have instructed those having ordinary skill in the art to
use a frame atop a windshield to secure a boat top in place. We
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007