Appeal No. 96-3201
Application 08/177,399
interchangeable with respect to the various mounting
structures. We further note that the language in the claims
directed to a furniture system are fully satisfied by Kao, and
the language with respect to “can be interchangeably
positioned,” as in the penultimate line of claim 1 is a mere
use limitation and is not accorded patentable weight.
Appellants argue that Kao requires a separate coupling
element not required by the present invention. However, the
presence of this coupling element is not precluded by the
claims on appeal. Finally, we disagree with appellants’
contention that Kao “does not teach to employ a plurality of
different fully inter-changeable mounting structures adapted
to different mounting environments of a furniture system.” In
fact, this is
what Kao expressly discloses with his table lamp 5 and his
floor lamp 1.4
While we note that the appellants and examiner have
We note that appellants have included the floor as a different height4
support surface in a furniture system, although technically, the floor is the
structural element that the furniture system sits upon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007