Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
preclude a child from standing on said step” (claim 1); “moving
the seat from a position where it precludes a child from standing
on the step” (claim 8); and “the seat being moveable from a
position where it precludes a child from standing on the step”
(claim 13).
With regard to the Nanna patent, the examiner refers to
column 3, lines 39 to 51, wherein it is disclosed that the foot
board (step) 37 may be placed on the seat 33 to cover the leg
openings 34. However, such an arrangement would not meet the
above-quoted limitations, because once the step 37 is removed
from its location below the seat 33, the seat can no longer
preclude a child from standing on the step. In other words, the
step cannot be in a position to be stood upon by a child, while
at the same time precluding a child from standing on it.
The above-quoted limitations are also not met by either of
the Fiore or Manuszak patents, because in both of these
references, even when the seat is in the horizontal position,
there is still a space within which a child may stand on the
step. Thus, in Fiore there is a space between the front of seat
22 and front frame 12, which would allow a child to stand on step
16, and in Manuszak (Fig. 2) there is a space between the front
of seat 64 and wall 20 wherein a child could stand on step 12.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007