Appeal No. 2001-1803
Application No. 09/087,775
Each of these rejections is fundamentally based on the combination of Goldman
and Borichevsky. Goldman (like Borichevsky, a design patent), shows a stool with a
rectangular platform and two trapezoidally-shaped legs, each leg being attached at its top
edge to the bottom of the platform. The basis of the rejection is (examiner’s answer, page
5):
Goldman shows the claimed stool with the exception of the claimed legs.
Borichevsky shows U-shaped legs connected to the side of a platform
enabling peripheral support of the platform. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
Goldman to comprise U-shaped legs attached as claimed or to modify his
leg structure to be of a width and to be connected at the sides of his platform
to enable peripheral support of his platform.
We do not consider this rejection to be well taken, since we agree with the appellant
that the references provide no suggestion or motivation for modifying the Goldman stool.
In particular, Borichevsky does not furnish a teaching that peripheral support of a platform
should be provided. Any such modification of Goldman would appear to be based on
impermissible hindsight gleaned from appellant’s own disclosure.
We therefore will not sustain rejection (3)(f). We also will not sustain rejections
(3)(g) to (3)(l), since the additional references applied therein do not overcome the above-
noted deficiency of the Goldman/Borichevsky combination.
Rejection (3)(m)
Claim 28 recites a stack of step stools of a certain structure, “wherein the plurality of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007