Appeal No. 2001-0036
Application 08/971,611
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
involved in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied prior art
references, and the respective viewpoints advanced by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 2, 4, 6, 7 through 10, 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on Challande, we note that after pointing to Figure
2 of Challande and the anti-friction layer or element (20)
seen therein, the examiner has concluded (answer, pages 4-5)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention to modify the
prop plate (75) of Challande Figure 5 “to include the low
friction coefficient film (20) on any contact surface (bottom,
sides, or top) in order to allow the movable support element
[80] to be able to have a smoother slide.” In further support
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007