Appeal No. 2000-0179
Application No. 08/923,774
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
As we conclude that the applied references are not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter, a discussion of the Ruger,
Chalfant and Stierle declarations filed by appellant in
support of patentability is not necessary. We shall not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 9-15 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 16
We turn now to the examiner's rejection of claim 16 as
being unpatentable over Sides in view of Dunkley and Hummer.
The examiner relies on Hummer for its disclosure of a hinge
bar (top axle) extending across the top of the end gate 11 for
pivotal mounting of the end gate with respect to the shopping
cart frame. We also note that Hummer teaches that "the
number of leg holes may be varied to provide accommodation for
two or more children" (column 2, lines 35-38). While this
teaching by Hummer might have suggested the desirability of
providing seating for more than one child in the Sides
shopping cart, Hummer would not have suggested providing a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007