Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
restates that the French Patent fails to suggest the lumbar
support for a high chair and to that extent the French Patent
is merely cumulative of all the references considered thus
far. We find this argument unpersuasive as we find ample
suggestion for placing a lumbar support as taught by Quinton
in a high chair as disclosed by Turner as we detailed above.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 17 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Turner in view of
Quinton, Greenbaum and the French Patent. We agree with the
examiner’s analysis as it relates to the application of rungs
as taught by the French patent and thus we will sustain this
rejection for the reasons stated above with respect to claim
7, which was rejected over Turner, Quinton and Greenbaum. As
with the rejection of claim 11, the appellant has not directed
attention to the application of the French Patent but rather
repeats his assertion as discussed above, that there is no
suggestion for placing a lumbar support in a high chair.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 17 as
unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Turner in view of Quinton,
Greenbaum and the French Patent.
We turn next to the rejections of claim 23 under 35
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007