Appeal No. 2000-1661 Page 3
Application No. 08/964,460
Independent claim 39 is the broadest claim, so we shall consider it first. This claim
reads as follows:
A leg for an article of furniture comprising:
1
said leg including a single extrusion comprising two vertical channels
being integral portions of said leg and providing vertical structural support for
said furniture, each channel adjacent the other channel and separated by a
wall member;
each of said channels including a vertical opening along the axial
length of each channel, the opening of each channel covered by a flexible
member to insert wires into each said channel.
This claim stands rejected as being unpatentable over Amey in view of Reuter. Using the
language of the claim as a guide, in Figure 9 Amey discloses a leg 2 for an article of office
furniture comprising a single extrusion comprising two vertical channels being integral
portions of the leg and providing vertical structural support for the furniture, each channel
adjacent the other channel and being separated by a wall member, each channel including
a vertical opening along the axial length of the channel, with the opening to each channel
being covered by a flexible member to insert wires in each channel. We regard Amey’s
members 18 to be flexible because, although such is not explicitly stated in the reference,
they are described as being “releasably engaged” (column 4, line 67), and it is clear from
the description in column 5 and the structure of the invention as illustrated in the drawings
1The phrase “said leg including” merely repeats the preamble of the claim, which
reads “[a] leg . . . comprising.” This should be corrected.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007