Appeal No. 1999-2243
Application 08/567,081
suggest to an observer that the object is
something other than a change cart.
The examiner's examples are not commensurate with the language
of claim 14, however, because this claim recites that "said
means [i.e., the "means adapting said cart to match a selected
casino theme" of parent claim 12] includes a plurality of
components [etc.]" (emphasis added). Since the "means adapt-
ing" disclosed by Pike is the logo attached to the side panels
(see rejection (1), supra), the examiner's first example of a
"plurality of components" is not well taken because the two
doors 90 on the top of Pike's cart are not included in the
logo. As for the second example, if removable side panels
were added to Pike's cart, it is not apparent to us what
object other than a change cart they would suggest.
Accordingly, we conclude that the combination of
Pike in view of Evans and Jones does not render the subject
matter of claim 14 obvious, and therefore we will not sustain
rejection (2) as to claim 14, or as to claim 15 dependent
thereon.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007