Appeal No. 2000-0512
Application No. 08/880,760
Moreover, we do not share the examiner's opinion, as expressed on page 4 of the
answer, that the concave depression 92 (or, for that matter, the armrest 82 in which the
depression is formed) is an "ovoid" head. In any case, we fail to appreciate how the5
protruding armrest structure, or the depression 92 formed therein, can reasonably be
considered to be part of a panel defining a flat figurative form that also includes a body region
(middle segment 70) from which extend a pair of legs (front legs 40).
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the claim limitations must
be taught or suggested by the prior art applied (see In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984, 180
USPQ 580, 582 (CCPA 1974)) and that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art (In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ
494, 496 (CCPA 1970)).
Having determined that Johnson fails to teach or suggest the above-mentioned features
of claim 1, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, or claim 8 which
depends therefrom.
The deficiencies in Johnson with respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1 find no cure in
the additional teachings of Vosbikian and Engel applied to support the obviousness rejections of the
remaining claims which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. It follows then that we also cannot
5We understand this term to mean "egg-shaped" (Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition
(Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007