Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/143,977
adjustment as taught by McClure. Appellant asserts (brief, page 14) that “claim 15
depends from claim 1 (via claim 9) and the features of the basic invention are not taught
or suggested by Moses. The Examiner does not look to McClure to remedy these
deficiencies. Nor can McClure provide the motivation and teaching needed to modify
Moses. The Examiner relies upon McClure solely for its teaching of a coupling 29 (col.
3, lines 40-45 for fasteners.” From our findings, supra, with respect to the teachings of
Moses, and McClure’s disclosure (figure 1 and col. 3, lines 40-45) of coupling 29 having
fasteners for bracing a door frame, we agree with the examiner, for the reasons set forth
in the answer, that an artisan would have been motivated to provide Moses with
fasteners connected to couplings to fix the first portion to the second portion of the
telescoping columns of Moses. In addition, we note that the nut 58 and bolt 56 of
Moses is seen to constitute a coupling and fastener as recited in claim 15. Accordingly,
for this additional reason, we find that the applied prior art teaches or suggests the
invention of claim 15. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007