Appeal No. 2001-1803
Application No. 09/087,775
stackable step stools are offset in a sequentially alternating manner.” Claim 29 is drawn to
a method of stacking step stools in which the stools are alternatively left offset stacked and
right offset stacked, “whereby a stack of step stools is formed so that the step stools are
offset from one another in a sequentially alternating manner.”
We note initially that we interpret the “plurality of stackable step stools” recited in
claim 28 as meaning at least three step stools. While two stools would normally also be
considered a plurality, it would require at least three stools in order to offset the plurality of
stools “in a sequentially alternating manner” as recited in the last two lines of the claim; at
least three stools are required because merely offsetting one stool relative to another
would not constitute “sequentially alternating.”
The Jacobsen reference discloses tables which can be stacked as shown in Fig. 2
and disclosed at col. 2, line 14 to 39. The tables are so constructed that they fit together
as shown in Fig. 2, but instead of being alternately offset stacked as recited in claims 28
and 29, they must be continuously stacked in one direction (to the right in Fig. 2). We
therefore do not consider the rejection to be well taken, for even if the Borichevsky stools
were stacked as taught by Jakobsen, they would not meet the alternate offset stacking
requirement of claims 28 and 29.
Rejection (3)(n)
The examiner stated this rejection as follows in the rejection appealed from (Paper
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007