Appeal No. 2000-0512
Application No. 08/880,760
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and the answer
(Paper No. 13) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the respective2
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons indicated below, we
cannot sustain the examiner's rejections.
Claim 1, the only independent claim involved in this appeal, reads as follows:
1. A cafe chair comprising:
A. a back section constituted by a contoured panel defining a flat
figurative form that includes an ovoid head that merges with a body region
having outwardly swelling hips from which extend a pair of widely-spaced legs
between which is a crotch zone, the legs acting as rear legs of the chair and the
body region as a back rest; and
B. a front section including a lobe-shaped seat having a generally-
straight front end supported on a pair of front legs spaced from the rear legs of
the chair, said seat having an arcuate rear end coupled at its center to the crotch
zone to connect the front section to the back section, said lobe-shaped seat
having inwardly curved opposing sides extending from the generally-straight
front end to the center of said arcuate rear end to create between the curved
sides and the rear legs free spaces adjacent said rear legs, whereby an occupant
2We note that claims 3 and 4 depend from canceled claim 2. For purposes of our review of the rejections
under appeal, we treat claims 3 and 4 as depending from claim 1. Additionally, we interpret the "sculptured panel"
in claim 3 as referring back to the "contoured panel" recited in claim 1. However, these informalities are deserving
of correction in the event of further prosecution before the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007