Appeal No. 96-2100
Application 08/149,844
We shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 and
4, but not the rejection of claim 6. The appellant’s argument
notwithstanding, nothing in method claims 1 and 3, much less in
the structure defined in claim 4, requires that the brace member
be positioned in advance of the collapse of the frame. That is,
the “unique sequence” upon which the appellant predicates
patentability is not a requirement of the claims. Moreover, the
open “comprising” language of claim 1 would not preclude
additional steps, including steps of removing and reinstalling
the brace member.
By contrast, claim 6 specifically requires that the slotted
openings in the shelf members be slightly larger than the cross-
members at the ends of the brace member so as to permit the
parallelogram frame of the shelf unit to be partially collapsed.
Nothing in the references relied upon by the examiner teaches or
suggests such a relationship of a slot and cross members, much
less one so dimensioned as to permit partial collapse.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 is affirmed,
while the rejection of claim 6 is reversed. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007