Appeal No. 2001-2512
Application No. 09/248,742
stated above for the rejection of claims 16 and 19 over Batie in
view of Bradbury.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as being
unpatentable over Rettenberger in view of Bradbury. The examiner
is of the opinion that Rettenberger discloses all of the elements
of the invention of claim 16 except the use of a backpack (or
storage means) joined directly to the back support frame. The
examiner relies on Bradbury for teaching the conventional use of a
backpack that is directly joined 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 Rettenberger, to have a backpack on the back support
frame, a shoulder strap means and connection means, as
taught by Bradbury, in order to provide additional
storage means and a more comfortable way of transporting
the chair. [answer at page 4]
The appellant argues that because Rettenberger discloses of a
three-frame folding chair and Bradbury discloses a lawn chair, it
would not have been obvious to transfer the structures of one chair
type for the other because the Rettenberger chair would fall over
backwards because of the weight of the Bradbury backpack.
We do not agree with the appellant that the Rettenberger chair
would fall over backwards because of the weight of a backpack. We
note that claim 16 is broad enough to cover an empty storage means
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007