Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 10 Application No. 10/143,977 asserts (brief, page 13) that Hughes does not make up for the deficiencies of Moses, and (brief, page 14) that Hughes merely teaches a solid member telescopically engaged with a tubular member. It is argued (id.) that “the structures, their application and related technologies are totally different and would not render the claimed invention obvious. Moreover, they would mitigate against their combination.” From our findings, supra, with respect to claim construction and the teachings of Moses, and Hughes’ disclosure of a support post or pipe inserted into a tubular member as part of a support bracket, we agree with the examiner that an artisan would have been motivated to make the first portion 50 of the telescopic support column of Moses solid as taught by Hughes and agree with the examiner that making one of the telescoping members solid would provide strong structural support. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained. We turn next to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moses in view of McClure. The examiner’s position (answer, page 5) is that Moses does not disclose “fasteners engaging the coupling and adjustable to compress the coupling, thereby applying frictional force to the first portion and fixing the first portion to the second portion.” To overcome this deficiency of Moses, the examiner turns to McClure for a teaching of a coupling having fasteners to compress the coupling. The examiner’s reasoning is that an artisan would have been motivated to make the modification because it would enable easy lengthPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007