Appeal No. 2000-0179
Application No. 08/923,774
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, to the Ruger and
Chalfant declarations (Paper No. 20) and the Stierle
declaration (Paper No. 19) , and to the respective positions2
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Claims 9-15 and 17
The subject matter of claims 9-15 and 17 differs from the
shopping cart of Sides in that Sides discloses only one seat
section pivotally mounted to the basket frame, rather than two
such seat sections as required by the claims. The examiner's
position, as stated on page 5 of the answer, is that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellant's invention to provide multiple seats in
tandem one in front of the other as taught by Dunkley for the
purpose of carrying a second passenger.
We note that Paper Nos. 19 and 20 were entered in reverse order of2
their receipt in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007