Appeal No. 2004-1920 Page 8
Application No. 09/302,1999
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we will not
sustain this rejection of independent claim 1 or of claims 6-12, which depend therefrom.
Since independent claim 13 contains the same limitations, we also will not
sustain this rejection of claim 13 and dependent claims 16, 17, 19 and 20.
(2)
The examiner further has rejected independent claims 1 and 13, along with
dependent claims 2-5, 14, 15 and 18, as being unpatentable over De Rosa in view of
Pesaturo and Moeller. In this rejection the examiner finds all of the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 13 to be disclosed by De Rosa, except for the impact means,
and takes the position that it would have been obvious to use an impact means to drive
an umbrella pole in view of Pesaturo, and to utilize the impact means disclosed by
Moeller to do so. While the order of the references in this rejection differs from that of
the first rejection of claims 1 and 13, the individual references are relied upon for the
same teachings. In particular, as was the case in the first rejection of claims 1 and 13,
Moeller is deficient insofar as disclosing the impact means required by claim 1, and the
present rejection cannot be sustained for the same reasons we advanced above against
the first.
This rejection is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007