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