Appeal No. 2000-1489 Page 4
Application No. 09/188,421
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
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claims 1 and 5
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103.
The examiner's position (answer, p. 3) with respect to
the rejection of claims 1 and 5 is that
Vartanian discloses a vehicle step 16 having base
plate 18, etc. secured thereto, upper deck 13 pivotally
connected to lower deck 14, via means 19, etc. and
selectively maintaining means 28, etc. If it is to be
inferred that the pivot is conventionally readily
removable to facilitate disassembly of the deck, this
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art,
desiring the same.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007