Appeal No. 1999-0937
Application No. 08/646,530
protective rails enclosing a rider, claim 1 is not anticipated by
this document. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
not sound and cannot be sustained.
Independent Claim 14
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cockram in view of Drew.
Claim 14 is drawn to a wheel chair for transporting a
handicapped person in a seated position and, akin to the feature
discussed above relative to independent claim 1, includes a pair
of elongated handle members that function as a pair of protective
rails enclosing a handicapped person.
As explained above, the Cockram teaching does not disclose
the feature of a pair of elongated handle members functioning as
a pair of protective rails enclosing a rider. Further, we see no
basis within the overall teaching of Cockram alone for concluding
that such a feature would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art. As a final point, we simply note that
the Drew reference does not remedy the deficiency of the Cockram
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007