Appeal No. 2001-0287 Page 2
Application No. 09/107,056
platform pivotably mounted on a door of a cabinet is
illustrated in Figures 1a, 1b and 14-17 in appellants’
application. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth
in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art
references of record in rejecting the appealed claims:
Frank et al. (Frank) 1,790,468 Jan. 27,
1931
Swanson 2,031,287 Feb. 18,
1936
Mulvaney 3,813,074 May 28,
1974
Cullinan 5,281,018 Jan. 25,
1994
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 10, 11 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Swanson
and Cullinan.
Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2
as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Swanson, Cullinan
and Mulvaney.
According to the examiner (Paper No. 9) the rejection under 35 U.S.C.1
§ 112, second paragraph, was overcome by the amendment of Paper No. 8.
It is apparent from the record as a whole that the examiner’s omission2
of claim 12 in the statement of the rejections on page 3 of the answer was
inadvertent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007