Appeal No. 96-4021
Application 08/289,300
not meet the limitations in these claims relating to the combined
pivotal/rotatable and linear movement of the upper side surface
means (claim 35) or armrest (claim 44) under the influence of
force transmitted from the arm of the person sitting on the seat
of the chair (see pages 5 through 10 and 12 through 15 in the
main brief and pages 1 and 2 in the reply brief). In large part,
such arguments are predicated on the failure of Van Seenus and
Danziger to disclose such combined movement.
Non-obviousness, however, cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Van Seenus provides for linear armrest movement and Danziger
provides for pivotal/rotatable armrest movement. As indicated
above, the rationale advanced by the examiner in support of the
proposed combination of these two features finds reasonable
support in the references. It is not apparent, nor has the
appellant cogently explained or factually established, why the
examiner’s implicit determination that the resulting armrest
assembly would be inherently capable of the combined movement
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007