Appeal No. 97-4214
Application 08/603,348
being unpatentable over Rosander; and
c) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosander in view of Everitt.
Reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 10)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 11) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections. On page 5 of the brief, the
appellant states that “[c]laims 11 through 22 are grouped
together and stand or fall together” and that “the Board may
select claim 11 from the group and decide the appeal on the
ground of rejection based on that claim alone.” Thus for
purposes of this appeal, claims 12 through 22 shall stand or
fall with representative claim 11.
As indicated above, claim 11 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rosander. Rosander
discloses a motorized device for moving and guiding a wheel-
supported scaffold. The device includes a horizontal platform
and frame 10, 11, a front wheel 12, a vertically extendible
steering mechanism 40-49 operatively connected to the front
wheel (see column 2, line 68 through column 3, line 3), two
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007