Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
apparatus." Appellants do not contest the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings
of Slipp and Folini with Chang's disclosure of "a stop member ring support
mount for imparting lateral stability including locking means with or without
a cam stop member at column 3 line 66 through column 4 line 34. . .for the
purpose of providing a supporting an article" (Answer, 10).
Accordingly, on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 12-17 under § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp, Folini and
Chang.
b. claims 27 and 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 which depends from claim 26 which
depends from claim 22. We have found claims 22 and 26 to be anticipated
by Slipp under § 102(b). Claim 27 further requires the apparatus of claim 26
to comprise location means comprising a cam stop surface for locking said
pegs in said second, operative position and claim 28 requires the cam stop
surface to be elevated with respect to said upper portion of the tray.
i. Slipp, Folini and Chang
Slipp, Folini and Chang have been discussed above. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
combine the teachings of Slipp with Chang's disclosure of "a stop member
ring support mount for imparting lateral stability including locking means
with or without a cam stop member at column 3 line 66 through column 4
line 34. . .for the purpose of providing a supporting an article" (Answer, 10).
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013