Appeal No. 2001-2338
Application 08/996,360
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
corrected answer (Paper No. 30, mailed December 3, 2001) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief
(Paper No. 24, filed November 20, 2000) and reply brief (Paper
No. 27, filed April 3, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
However, before looking to the prior art rejections put
forth by the examiner, we note that it is an essential
prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be fully understood.
Accordingly, we initially direct our attention to appellant’s
independent claims 23, 28, 33 and 36 to derive an understanding
of the scope and content thereof. Claims 23, 28 and 33 are each
directed to a combination including, inter alia, “a substantially
non-movable chair” having an armrest and a cushioning apparatus
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007