Appeal No. 2001-2512
Application No. 09/248,742
We will not sustain this rejection for the same reasons as stated
above in connection with the rejection of claims 8 over Batie and
Fanslau.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 19
as being unpatentable over Batie in view of Bradbury. The examiner
finds that Batie discloses essentially the invention as claimed
except the use of a storage means connected to a back support
frame.1 Bradbury is relied on for disclosing a storage means
connected to a back support frame. 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 storage means and shoulder
strap means and the connecting means of Bradbury, in
order to provide more stability, storage space and better
transport of the chair. [answer at page 5]
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Batie and Bradbury because Batie discloses
a three frame folding chair and Bradbury discloses a lawn chair and
it would not be obvious to transfer the structures of one chair
type to the other. Specifically, the appellant argues that were a
backpack placed on the back of the Batie chair, the chair would
1 The examiner also found that Batie does not disclose
means for removably connecting the support frames, shoulder strap
means and connecting means.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007