Appeal No. 2001-1803
Application No. 09/087,775
(g) Claims 12 to 14, unpatentable over Goldman in view of
Borichevsky and either of Good or Ruda;
(h) Claims 15, 16 and 19, unpatentable over Goldman in view of
Borichevsky and Lyons;
(i) Claims 2, 8, 10, 20, 24 and 26, unpatentable over Goldman in view
of Borichevsky or Hamilton;3
(j) Claims 21 to 23, unpatentable over Goldman in view of
Borichevsky, Hamilton, and either of Good or Ruda;
(k) Claims 24 and 25, unpatentable over Goldman in view of
Borichevsky, Hamilton, and Lyons;
(l) Claim 27, unpatentable over Goldman in view of Borichevsky,
Hamilton and Muller-Deisig;
(m) Claims 28 and 29, unpatentable over Borichevsky in view of
Jakobsen;
(n) Claims 28 and 29, unpatentable over Borichevsky.
Rejection (1)
The examiner considers claim 28 to be indefinite because in its last two lines, it
recites “wherein the plurality of stackable step stools are offset in a sequentially alternating
manner.” According to the examiner, “the claimed offset is vague as it does [not] specify
any specific relationship of the stools” (answer, page 3).
We will not sustain this rejection. Reading claim 28 in light of the disclosure, we
consider that one of ordinary skill would understand what is meant by the term “offset.”
3In stating this rejection on page 6 of the answer, the examiner inadvertently substituted claim 18
for claim 10.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007