Appeal No. 2000-0179
Application No. 08/923,774
second seat section in tandem with the seat section (seat
structure) of Sides pivotally mounted to the basket frame as
required by claim 16. Thus, Hummer does not cure the
deficiency of the combination of Sides and Dunkley discussed
above. Accordingly, we shall also not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 16, which depends from claim 10, as being
unpatentable over Sides in view of Dunkley and Hummer.
Claims 18-20
The subject matter of claims 18-20 differs from the Sides
shopping cart in that Sides lacks a second seat section as
recited in claim 18 and in that the rear wall (receptacle wall
25) of Sides lacks a top axle extending between and pivotally
mounted upon vertical support rods which extend upward along
opposite sides of said basket frame. Rather, the Sides
receptacle wall 25 includes vertical rods terminating at the
top in eyelets which surround a horizontal axle forming part
of the basket frame.
As for the details of the pivotal attachment of the rear
wall to the basket frame, the examiner finds that Hummer
teaches such an arrangement and determines that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007