Appeal No. 2000-1661 Page 2
Application No. 08/964,460
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an article of furniture. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 21, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Amey et al. (Amey) 5,435,254 Jul. 25, 1995
Reuter et al. (Reuter) 5,685,113 Nov. 11, 1997
Claims 21-23, 26-33, 36, 37 and 39-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Amey in view of Reuter.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
Supplemental Brief (Paper No. 15) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 18) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007