Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
statement qualifies as an argument due to its lack of specificity.
In any event, if the appellant's statement is meant to assert that
the Tousignant reference is from a nonanalogous art, we cannot
agree.
This prior art reference is analogous at least because it is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem (i.e., mounting and
accessing a container structure at a height substantially above
ground level) with which the appellant/inventor was involved.
See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
As for the rejections formulated by the Examiner, the
appellant does not dispute with any reasonable specificity the
Examiner's determination as to the manner in which the appealed
claims distinguish from the Lehman reference. Rather, it is the
appellant's basic argument that each of the Examiner's rejections
is improper because the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion for combining the reference disclosures in the manner
proposed by the Examiner. We cannot agree.
On pages 3-6 of the answer, the Examiner has presented a
detailed exposition of the teachings, suggestions and motivations
which would have led an artisan to combine the applied references
in such a manner as to yield the appellant's claimed subject
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007