Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
In regard to the recitation in claim 8 that the
lengths for each of said extensions are generally twice as
long as said first and second pairs of chair legs, the
examiner is of the opinion that the length of the table legs
appears to be greater than the length of the chair legs as
depicted in Figure 2 and that in any case it would have been a
matter of design choice to modify the length of table legs to
be twice the length of the chair legs, since the appellant has
not disclosed that providing leg extensions of generally twice
the length of said front and rear chair legs solves any stated
problem not solved by the leg extensions that are disclosed by
Greenbaum. (Examiner’s Answer at page 10). We agree with the
analysis of the examiner, and thus we will sustain this
rejection as it relates to claim 8.
In regard to the recitation in claim 10 that there
is a means for attaching the foot rest for selective
interposition between the first pair of chair legs. The
examiner relies on the disclosure of Turner for teaching a
selective interposition of a foot rest between front chair
legs. Appellant’s argument that brace 17 of Greenbaum’s chair
is not a footrest is not persuasive in view of the disclosure
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007