Appeal No. 2002-1645 Page 11
Application No. 09/281,553
with claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 5
to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Engelhart is also affirmed.
Claims 3 and 4
Claim 3 adds to parent claim 1 the further limitation that the back portion "defines
a back opening sized and shaped to permit at least partial wheelchair access into said
interior space."
The back portion of Engelhart as we have applied it to parent claim 1 does not
have a back opening sized and shaped to permit at least partial wheelchair access into
the interior space due to bar 16 and cross bars 28 and 30. Moreover, it is our view that
it is shear speculation as to whether Engelhart's inverted U-shaped cross bar 62 is
capable of bracing the upper back of a standing patient. Accordingly, the subject
matter of claim 3 is not met by Engelhart.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3,
and claim 4 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Engelhart is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007