Appeal No. 1999-2243
Application 08/567,081
or intended use of the invention. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cited in Pitney
Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51
USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
With regard to claim 17, the "common distance"
recited is met by Losi, who discloses that the casters 12, 14
are raised "an inch or so above the floor" (col. 3, line 19).
This would "permit the casters to touch carpet" as recited,
since they would all touch the carpet if its pile were deep
enough, and even if it were not, the distance would permit
them to touch carpet, as by tipping the cart somewhat about
the central wheels 10.
(II) Claims 16 to 21, 23 to 28, 31, 32, 34 to 36 and 38 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Whorton in
view of Boldt. Whorton discloses a food-carrying cart having
a
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007