Appeal No. 97-3981
Application 08/506,423
The appellant has not challenged the proposed combination of Schumacher
and Persaud in arguing the rejection of independent claim 6. Instead, the appellant
contends that the rejection is unsound because the applied references do not teach, and
would not have suggested, an apparatus meeting the limitations in the claim relating to the
mounting arm, the cross slide mechanism, and the massaging device (see pages 8 and 9
in the brief). Contrary to the appellant’s arguments, however, (1) Schumacher’s mounting
arm (frame 12) is pivotally movable relative to a single plane parallel to the base (bottom of
housing 40) between a stowage position and a fixed outwardly extending position (see
Figures 4 and 5; and column 4, line 41 through column 5, line 3); (2) Schumacher’s cross
slide mechanism (slide member 60) permits the mounting arm (frame 12) to be lineally
movable within the single plane (again see Figures 4 and 5; and column 4, line 41 through
column 5, line 3); and (3) Schumacher’s massaging device (back contacting portion 46) is
separately movable a limited distance toward and away from the base (bottom of housing
40) (see column 4, lines 1 through 32), all to the extent recited in claim 6.
Thus, the appellant’s position that the subject matter recited in claim 6 is patentable
over the combined teachings of Schumacher and Persaud is not persuasive. Therefore,
we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of this claim.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 7 and 8,
which depend from claim 6, as being unpatentable over Schumacher in view of Persaud.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007