Appeal 2007-1687
Application 10/136,781
THE REMAINING § 103 REJECTIONS
In these remaining rejections, all of the Examiner’s proposed
combinations of the applied references are fundamentally based upon the
above-discussed combination of Bisaka and Edwards as an attempt to
achieve the continuous adjustability feature of independent claim 1 and the
non-discrete adjustability feature of independent claim 10. For reasons
analogous to those previously explained, Bisaka and Edwards are
evidentially inadequate to support an obviousness conclusion with respect to
these claim features.
Therefore, we also cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 29-31, 33, and 34 as being unpatentable over Vitale in
view of Bisaka and Edwards or the corresponding rejections of claims 7, 12,
and 15 as being unpatentable over these references and further in view of
Gelting, Okamoto, and Hanrahan respectively.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
clj
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013