Appeal No. 2001-2512 Application No. 09/248,742 by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 8) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 7) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst. Opinion In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow. We turn first to the rejection of claims 8, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batie in view of Fanslau. In the examiner’s view, Batie teaches all of the elements of the invention except for the use of a headrest having a head supporting surface. The examiner relies on Fanslau for teaching a chair with a headrest hingedly connected to a back support frame and a headrest which has a head supporting surface which lies within the back supporting frame when the chair is folded. The examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the chair of Batie et al., with the headrest of Fanslau et al., in order to provide more head support and comfort to an occupant of the chair. [answer at pages 3 and 4] 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007