Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 12
Application No. 08/253,721
The examiner responded to this argument (answer, pp. 4
and 7) by arguing that it is common to have some arc to the
lower surface and the leading edge and therefore an arcuate
cross-section would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
It is our opinion that the examiner has not presented any
evidence that would have led a skilled artisan to arrive at
the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no evidence in
the rejection before us that would have suggested modifying
Maeda's sheet (i.e., bottom-surface component 5) to have a
concave configuration toward the furniture to be moved.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 8 and 9
Claim 8 reads as follows:
The slide according to Claim 4 in which said rubber
material comprises a closed foam construction with a
hardness greater than 75 durometers on the shore 00
scale.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007