Ex parte LETERSKY - Page 5




          Appeal No. 96-2100                                                          
          Application 08/149,844                                                      


          in the art.  Rather than reiterate the examiner’s statement of              
          these rejections, we direct attention to pages 4 and 5 of the               
          answer.                                                                     
               In response to the examiner’s section 103 rejections, the              
          appellant makes only the following two arguments.  First, the               
          appellant argues that:                                                      
               the steps recite positioning the brace and then                        
               collapsing the parallelogram frame to position it                      
               within the storage compartment.  This is an unusual                    
               sequencing of method steps, normally when bracing has                  
               been added it precludes a structure from being                         
               collapsed. . . . It is respectfully submitted that the                 
               Hill reference does not render obvious the unique                      
               sequence of the method steps recited in Claim 1 [brief,                
               pages 5-6; emphasis in the original].                                  
          Second, the appellant argues,                                               
               The particular structure of brace member 48 disclosed                  
               in the present application that permits parallelogram                  
               frame 38 to be collapsed for insertion into the student                
               locker is claimed in combination claim 6.  This                        
               includes “T” shaped slotted openings 54 in shelf                       
               members 14 and 16 along with “I” shaped cross-members                  
               58 at each of first end 50 and second end 52 of brace                  
               member 48. . . .                                                       
               * * *                                                                  
               It is to be noted that the claim in question, claim 6,                 
               recites a structure that permits the parallelogram                     
               frame to be partially collapsed.  This is unusual for                  
               as a rule the purpose of bracing is, as stated by                      
               Sheffer, to add “rigidity to the overall structure”                    
               [brief, pages 6-7].                                                    



                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007