Appeal No. 2001-1803
Application No. 09/087,775
As appellant argues on page 7 of the brief, “the offset limitation is not vague, merely
broad.” Breadth of a claim is not be equated with indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F2d
689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
Rejection (2)
Considering the ottoman (stool) disclosed by Borichevsky in relation to the
language of claim 1, the Borichevsky stool has a platform comprising a substantially
rectangular support surface with four edges, there being a side at each edge, and a
support frame with two U-shaped supports, each support having a center portion between
a front and a rear leg, and the center portions being attached to opposite sides of the
platform. Borichevsky, a design patent, does not disclose that the stool illustrated is
securely stackable so that it is free to be offset, etc., as recited in the last four lines of claim
1, but the examiner takes the position, in effect, that it would have be capable of being
stacked in the manner claimed. Appellant argues that (brief, page 9):
Importantly, Borichevsky does not disclose a structural arrangement that
would accomplish this functionality [of being stackable, as recited in claim 1].
The claimed first through fourth sides disposed at respective first through
fourth edges of the substantially rectangular support surface help to achieve
this claimed functionality. In contrast, the support surface of Borichevsky has
at most four edges, but no sides extending from those edges.
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments presented in appellant’s
brief and reply brief, and in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the rejection is well
taken.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007