Appeal No. 2002-1807 Page 2
Application No. 09/247,419
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a shopping cart. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Nicholl et al. (Nicholl) 2,812,187 Nov. 5, 1957
Hummer 3,184,248 May 18, 1965
Bowers et al. (Bowers) 5,288,089 Feb.22, 1994
Claims 1, 5 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nicholl.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nicholl in view of Hummer.
Claims 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nicholl in view of Bowers.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007