Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
the language of these claims to recite a first pair of chair
leg extensions for selective connection to the pair of first
chair legs and a second pair of chair leg extensions for
selective connection to the pair of second chair legs.
The examiner has cited the Greenbaum reference for
teaching a pair of U-shaped leg extensions which provide
needed height for Greenbaum’s child seat. In the examiner’s
opinion:
It would have been obvious to have provided
the removable extensions of Greenbaum on
the child seat of Turner, because doing so
would have provided the advantage of
enabling the person attending the child to
choose a high or low configuration . . .
[Examiner’s Answer, page 9]
We agree with the analysis of the examiner, and thus we will
sustain this rejection as it relates to claim 7.
Appellant argues that Greenbaum discloses table leg
11 and chair leg 16 as to opposed to chair leg extensions and
chair legs as recited in claim 7. However, as the seat in
Greenbaum is disposed to be placed on top of the table, the
table legs 11 form an extension for the chair legs and can be
broadly considered to be chair leg extensions. Therefore, we
do not find this argument persuasive.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007