Appeal No. 2001-2512
Application No. 09/248,742
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 8) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (Paper No. 7) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
Opinion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 8, 9 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batie in view of
Fanslau. In the examiner’s view, Batie teaches all of the elements
of the invention except for the use of a headrest having a head
supporting surface. The examiner relies on Fanslau for teaching a
chair with a headrest hingedly connected to a back support frame
and a headrest which has a head supporting surface which lies
within the back supporting frame when the chair is folded.
The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify the chair
of Batie et al., with the headrest of Fanslau et al., in
order to provide more head support and comfort to an
occupant of the chair. [answer at pages 3 and 4]
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007