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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007