Appeal No. 1998-3296 Page 7
Application No. 08/681,857
Additionally, the modified device of Raeder would still be a
bathtub and thus would not be readable on being "a bath chair"
as recited in the claims under appeal.
Since all the limitations of the claims under appeal are
not suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons set
forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2,
5 through 8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007