Appeal No. 98-2261
Application 08/314,829
the chair by means of the cover, it is not evident how a cover
as disclosed by Baron would be used with the chair of DeMars,
for the reasons stated by appellant on page 9 of the brief.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejections (2) and (3)
The additional prior art applied in these rejections,
namely, Sinohuiz and APA, does not supply the deficiency noted
above with regard to rejection (1), and therefore rejections
(2) and (3) will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 18 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007