Appeal No. 1999-2243
Application 08/567,081
Rejection (3)
As stated on page 5 of the final rejection, the
essence of this rejection is:
Based on the teachings of Pike et al.,
it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the cart of
Johnson to include a cash receptacle to
keep money in for change.
Appellant argues at page 15 of the brief that (a) one skilled
in the art would not have been motivated to install a cash
receptacle in Johnson's cafeteria tray cart, and (b) since the
wheels of the Johnson cart are all tangent to the same plane,
the two centrally located wheels are not "sized for carrying
the primary load of said cart," and do not cooperate "to
enable manual turning of said cart on its own centerline," as
recited in claim 16.6
6We do not find antecedent basis in appellant's specifi-
cation for the expression "on its own centerline." See 37
CFR § 1.75(d)(1). From the disclosure at page 6, line
28, to page 7, line 3, we assume that any cart whose central
pair of wheels is tangent to a floor plane lower than the
plane to which the corner wheels (casters) are tangent
would meet claim 16's recitation of being able to turn "on
its own centerline."
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007