Appeal No. 2001-2338
Application 08/996,360
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
and In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). In the present case, the examiner has not attempted
to define or otherwise provide any reasonable interpretation of
the claim language in question. In applying the above precepts
to the present case, we would agree with appellant that the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification that may be applied to the terminology
“substantially non-movable chair” as in claims 23, 28 and 33 on
appeal and “substantially non-movable stadium chair” as in claim
36 on appeal is that such a chair is an outdoor stadium or arena
seat permanently mounted in place.
With the above interpretation in mind, we look to the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 23, 28, 33 and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Zapf
and Geraci. According to the examiner (answer, pages 3-4), Zapf
“teaches the structure substantially as claimed including a
substantially non-movable chair provided as a permanently mounted
stadium chair” and having armrests with cushioning apparatus (12,
14) thereon which are removable from and securable about the
chair armrests. The only difference identified by the examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007