Appeal No. 97-0972
Application 08/399,571
down a theater seat in the manner claimed. See In re Schreiber,
supra, and LaBounty Mfg. v Int’l Trade Comm’n, supra. As in the
case of the hold-down member of Gardels, the support leg 16 of
Reyes would not undergo a metamorphosis to a new device simply
because it was used to hold down a theater seat in the claimed
manner. See In re Pearson, supra, and Ex parte Masham, supra.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 6 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Reyes.
Turning to the rejection of claims 4, 8 and 10-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Reyes, we find nothing in
Reyes which would fairly suggest “two beveled corners diagonally
opposed one from the other” (emphasis ours) as set forth in
claims 4, 8 and 12. With respect to claims 10-12 we find
nothing, nor does the examiner even allege there is anything, in
Reyes which would suggest the limitation set forth in independent
claim 10 of
a through opening and a slit, said slit being defined
between an upper end of said elongated member at a
central portion thereof and said through opening, said
slit providing access to said through opening for
closely receiving the armrest support. [Footnote 2
2Indeed, if the examiner actually believed that Reyes
taught such structure, it seems strange to us that claims 5 and 9
were not also rejected under § 102 as being anticipated by Reyes
inasmuch as these dependent claims only respectively add to
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007