Appeal No. 2002-1266 Page 6
Application No. 09/757,603
requirements of claims 20 and 21, the foot platforms in the Munnoch machine move
with the seat.
The combined teachings of Boice and Munnoch fail to establish a prima facie
case of obvious with regard to the subject matter of claims 20 and 21 for several
reasons. First, they do not disclose or teach locating the foot platform “between” the
drive wheels in the manner required by the claims. Second, in view of the construction
of the Boice mower and the fact that it is intended to be operated only while seated, we
fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide it with a stowable seat, for such would seem to serve
no purpose. Third, even if a stowable seat were provided, neither reference suggests
that the foot platform not be movable with the seat.
The rejection of claims 20 and 21 is not sustained.
Claim 22, which depends from claim 21, stands rejected on the basis of Boice
and Munnoch, taken further with Berrios, the latter being cited for teaching pivoting the
foot platform of a mower about an axis different from the pivot axis of the seat. Be that
as it may, the addition of Berrios does not overcome the deficiencies pointed out about
combining Boice and Munnoch, and therefore we also will not sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007