Appeal No. 2006–0377 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/066,085
frame, but nonetheless finds that it would have been obvious to fixedly connect the
saddle-shaped support to the device frame (answer at page 5).
We will sustain this rejection. Appellant argues that Osako 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, claim 1 does not recite that the saddle-shaped
support is fixedly connected to the device frame.
The decision of the examiner affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007