Appeal No. 2006–0377 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/066,085
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Müller.
We have addressed the readability of claims 1 and 4 on Muller above. In regard
to the recitation in claim 3 of the saddle-shaped support being connected fixedly to the
device frame, the examiner states:
While, no device frame is disclosed it is clear that both the forward and
rear ends of the saddle-shaped support must be fixedly supported by
some structure. It would have been obvious to one or[f] ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to fixedly attach the rear end of the
saddle-shaped support to a device frame [answer at page 4].
We will sustain this rejection. Appellant argues that Müller does not disclose or
suggest that the saddle-shaped support is connected fixedly to the device frame. We
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to fixedly connect the saddle-
shaped support to the device frame because the saddle-shaped support must be
connected to some support. In addition, neither of claims 1 or 4 recite that the saddle-
shaped support is fixedly connected to the device frame.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection.
We turn lastly to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Osako.
As in the preceding rejection, the examiner recognizes that Osako does not
explicitly describe that the saddle-shaped support is fixedly connected to the device
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007