Appeal No. 96-2455
Application 08/223,323
quired in appellants' claims on appeal. To address these
differences, the examiner points to Gemy and Nail, urging that
Gemy (figs. 1, 2) teaches the use of adhe-
sives means to facilitate anchoring a cover
means to a chair and the patent to Nail
teaches the use of flaps for a covering
means to conform and facilitate anchoring
and producing an aesthetically pleasing
cover to be old (answer, page 4).
The examiner then concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious and well
within the level of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the structure of Schenz to
include adhesives and flap means, as taught
by Nail
and Gemy, to provide an alternative
conventional anchoring means and better
aesthetics, such structure used in the same
intended purpose, thereby providing
structure as claimed.
Contrary to the position of the examiner, the
applied references do not teach or suggest "tabs," like those
claimed by
appellants, positioned on a temporary seat cover in the manner
required in the claims on appeal. Even more disturbing,
however, is the fact that none of the applied references teach
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007