Appeal No. 2002-1807 Page 7
Application No. 09/247,419
and the second is that claims 24 and 26 would have been obvious in view of Nicholl and
Bowers. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). It is our view that this test is not met
by either rejection, and we will not sustain them.
Claim 21 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the shopping cart have a child
seat, and claim 22 further states that the child seat comprise a flexible hammock.
Hummer was applied for these teachings. However, even considering Nicholl in the
light of Section 103, the deficiency pointed out above with regard to its application to
claim 1 is not overcome by Hummer. This being the case, Nicholl and Hummer fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claims
21 and 22.
Claims 24-26 have been rejected as being obvious in view of Nicholl and
Bowers, the latter being applied for teaching equipping a shopping cart with a brake.
Be that as it may, Bowers fails to cure the defect in Nicholl regarding the subject matter
of claim 1, and therefore this rejection cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed..
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007