Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of claim 3, and we will not sustain the
rejection.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and adds the requirement
that the apertures be “tubular” and “radially oriented” with
respect to the arc of curvature of the spreader bar body. The
common definition of “tube” is “a cylindrical structure.” 4
This is not contradicted by the explanations provided in the
appellants’ disclosure. The apertures (H) in the Nickerson
spreader bar clearly are not tubular, but have an elongated
cross-section. In addition to this shortcoming, the apertures
are not radially oriented with respect to the arc of curvature
of the spreader bar, but are perpendicular thereto. It is the
examiner’s position on pages 6-7 of the Final Rejection that,
in view of Lloyd,
[i]t would have been obvious to curve the spreader
bar of Nickerson horizontally and outwardly from the
longitudinal axis . . . in order to increase the
body supporting area of the hammock. The apertures
of the combined structure would inherently have a
radial orientation since the bar is curved.
4See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 1270.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007