Appeal No. 97-1143
Application 08/115,881
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rice in view of Covert and Berry.
Rejection (3)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and, therefore, includes
all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. The examiner
applies Berry in the rejection of claim 3 for the reason set
forth above with respect to claim 10. Since we have found
that neither Borgman nor Berry overcome the deficiency of the
combined teachings of Rice and Covert noted above, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Rice in view of Covert, Borgman and Berry.
Rejection (4)
Claims 7 through 9 are dependent, directly or indirectly,
on claim 6 and, therefore, include all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 6. The examiner applies Rice, Covert and Borgman
against
claims 7 through 9 for the reasons set forth above in
Rejection (1). Shadel is cited to show the details of the
wheel mechanism set forth in claims 7 through 9. Shadel shows
a collapsible shipping crate or hand truck with a folding
running gear (lines 10-23). The folding running gear includes
a first pair of wheels 17 and a second pair of casters 18
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007