Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
(brief, page 6) that the applied references do not teach or
suggest forming the arched bars and the platform “as a unitary
one-piece structure” (claim 7), or forming the arched bars and
the feet “as a unitary one-piece structure” (claim 8).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of
Morozov and Oaks.
Claim 4 on appeal sets forth that the arched bars of
resilient spring material are “fabricated of a material
selected from the group consisting of spring steel, fiberglass
and polyurethane.” In rejecting this claim the examiner has
relied upon Morozov and Oaks as applied to claim 1 above,
taken further in view of Mansfield. In the examiner’s opinion
(answer, page 5), Mansfield teaches that it is known in the
art to make spring elements out of aluminum, fiberglass or
polycarbonate (col. 3, lines 5-13). From this purported
teaching, the examiner urges that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention to make the bars/springs (3) of Morozov out of
fiberglass. Morozov specifically notes (translation, page 3)
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007