Appeal 2007-2844
Application 09/829,032
3) Claims 1 and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Brault and Cragg (id. at 6).
As Appellant does not argue the rejections separately, and as the
rejections are essentially the same, the following analysis applies to all three
grounds of rejection. In addition, claims 5-9 stand or fall with claim 1 (Br.
2).
Brault is relied upon for teaching a support apparatus having “all of
the limitations of the claimed invention except for the collar having one
aperture and a plurality of spaced apart through holes.” (Answer 4.) Brault
is also relied upon for its teaching that the support apparatus, i.e. base
member, has a plurality of uses (Brault col. 2, ll. 63-66). Brault teaches that
the support apparatus may be used as, for example, “as a stand for traffic
signs, for supporting a post for various games such as for holding the basket
in basketball, for holding a net in tennis or badminton games and for
generally holding pictograms or shelves.” (Brault, col. 3, ll. 1-6.)
Ferrari, Wilson, or Cragg are relied upon for their disclosure of a base
that is either fillable (Ferrari and Wilson) or weighted (Cragg), wherein the
base has a collar having a aperture and a fastener, and for teaching a post
having a plurality of spaced apart holes (Answer 4-6). The Examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to have modified Brault to hav[e] included the collar having an
aperture, a fastener, and the post having a plurality of spaced apart through
holes as taught by [Ferrari, Wilson or] Cragg for the purpose of adjusting the
height of the stand to accommodate various heights when used as a
basketball sign support, a traffic sign, a tennis net support or badminton
game apparatus as discussed . . . [by] Brault.” (Id. at 6.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013