Appeal No. 2004-1920 Page 9
Application No. 09/302,1999
(3)
Claim 18, which depends from claim 13, additionally has been rejected as being
unpatentable over De Rosa in view of Pesaturo and Moeller as cited against claim 13,
taken further in view of Reed, which is applied for teaching an umbrella having a table
attached to the pole. Be that as it may, Reed fails to alleviate the deficiencies in Moeller
with regard to the construction of the impact tool, and therefore this rejection cannot be
sustained.
(4)
A third rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 is based upon Pesaturo in view
of De Rosa and Moeller. Again, the references are applied for the same teachings as in
the other two rejections of these claims, and Moeller suffers from the same problems.
The rejection of claims 1-17, 19 and 20 on this basis is not sustained.
(5)
We reach the same conclusion, on the same basis, with regard to the rejection of
claim 18 as being unpatentable over Pesaturo in view of De Rosa and Moeller, taken
further in view of Reed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007