Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 11
Application No. 08/253,721
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 3, 4 and 6
The appellants have grouped claims 2-4 and 6 as standing
or falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR7
§ 1.192(c)(7), claims 3, 4 and 6 fall with claim 2. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3,
4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claim 7
Claim 7 reads as follows:
The slide according to Claim 16 in which said sheet
has a concave configuration toward said furniture to be
moved.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 8) that Maeda does not
teach or suggest the claimed sheet having "a concave
configuration toward said furniture to be moved."
7See page 5 of the brief.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007