Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
onto the pivoting false bottom disclosed in Schafer et al. in a manner that
would still allow the false bottom to pivot properly.” Aside from being
unsupported by evidence and thus speculative, this statement also does not
provide the aforementioned motivation or explanation. Furthermore, the
applied references do not support the Examiner’s position that feet 32 are an
art-recognized equivalent to ribs 20 of Schafer. Finally, while the Examiner
equates the basket 28 of Matry with the false bottom of Schafer, we question
whether such an interpretation of Matry is driven by the evidence or by
hindsight reasoning.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 8-13 as being obvious over Schafer in view of Matry.
III. Conclusion
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting reissue claims 8 through 13 based on
recapture is affirmed, and the decision of the Examiner rejecting reissue
claims 8-13 based on obviousness is reversed.
40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007