Appeal No. 1998-0357
Application 08/258,429
Claim 31 recites a method of constructing a table which
is substantially similar to the table recited in claim 1
except for the differences embodied in the claimed steps of
providing a leg structure and a foot having a length
determined by the width of the table top and mounting the foot
to the leg structure. The appellants’ argument (see page 36
in the brief) that the applied references, and particularly
Gutmann, would not have suggested a method having such steps
is belied by Gutmann’s disclosure of the use of plug-in beams
12 and 13, which in effect are foot extenders, to add
stability to the associated support assembly. Gutmann’s
teaching here is exemplary of the common sense expedient of
providing a table leg foot with a length appropriate to the
width of the table top. Therefore we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 31 as being
unpatentable over Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or
without Arnold, and further in view of Gutmann.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 33 through 40 as being unpatentable over
Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or without Arnold, and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007