Appeal No. 98-2261
Application 08/314,829
(a) there is no teaching or suggestion in DeMars of a towel
rack as recited in part (g) of claims 1 and 14; (b) Craig does
not teach or suggest a canopy formed of a member having ends
which
are pivotally connected to the frame through a connector; and
(c) it would not have been obvious from Baron to secure a
storage compartment to the foldable frame of the DeMars chair.
As for argument (a), the examiner takes the position that
the upper arm of DeMars’s frame 20 (to which bracket 64 is
attached) constitutes the towel rack as claimed. We agree.
While DeMars does not disclose or suggest that a towel may be
hung on the upper end of the frame, it is clearly capable of
being so used, and “[i]t is well settled that the recitation
of an intended new use for an old product does not make a
claim to that old product patentable”. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant’s argument that the reference is destroyed by
modifying the reference is not well taken, since no
modification of DeMars is proposed. Also, the upper portion
of DeMars’s frame, on which the recited towel rack is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007