Appeal No. 1999-2243
Application 08/567,081
with ready access to change, would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill that such a receptacle be provided in the tray
cart of Johnson, since as far as can be determined Johnson's
tray cart is not used for collecting or providing anyone with
cash.
With respect to argument (b), we do not consider
that Johnson meets the limitations in question because, as we
interpret the limitation concerning turning "on its own
centerline" (see footnote 6), the bottoms of the five wheels
on Johnson's cart are all tangent to the same plane.
Accordingly, rejection (3) will not be sustained.
Rejection (4)
This rejection will likewise not be sustained. Even
assuming that it would have been obvious, in view of Boldt, to
provide Johnson's cart with a wheel arrangement as recited in
claim 17, the rejected claims still distinguish over the prior
art applied in that it would not have been obvious to provide
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007