Appeal No. 2001-2512
Application No. 09/248,742
Appellant argues that the headrest disclosed in Fanslau is not
attached to the chair so that in the closed position the headrest
is mounted “within” or inside the back support frame and in the
open position is supported by the back support frame. We find
ourselves in agreement with the appellant that in Figure 3, which
depicts the closed position of the chair, the headrest of Fanslau
does not lie “within” or inside the back support frame. As such, we
will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 8 and
claims 9 and 14 dependent therefrom.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batie in view of
Fanslau and Bradbury. Claims 11 and 15 are dependent on claim 8.
We have reviewed the disclosure of Bradbury, and find that Bradbury
does not cure the deficiencies noted above for Batie and Fanslau.
Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection for the same reasons
stated above in connection with the rejection of claim 8 over Batie
in view of Fanslau.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batie in view of
Fanslau and Amato. Claims 12 and 13 are dependent on claim 8.
We have reviewed the disclosure of Amato, and find that Amato
does not cure the deficiencies noted above for Batie and Fanslau.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007