Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
beverage receiving recess in order to accommodate various
sized commonly used beverage containers (including a large
size container such as depicted by the appellants on the
right-hand side of the tray in Fig. 2).
As to the particular distance between the downward
projections set forth in claim 12, in comparing the size of
Mackey’s tray relative to the car seat as depicted in Fig. 2,
it appears that the distance between the downward projections
16 is in fact “on the order of 14 inches” as claimed. In any
event, the artisan as a matter of “common sense” (In re Bozek,
supra) would have found it obvious to vary the size of
Mackey’s tray as desired.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejections
of 6-8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning next to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being over Mackey, the examiner has taken the
position that the provision of “roughened surfaces” on the
walls Mackey’s projections 16 would have been obvious.
However, there appears to be neither reason nor need for such
surfaces in Mackey, and the examiner has not provided any
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007