Appeal No. 2003-0092
Application No. 09/432,525
Appellant submits at page 4 of the principal brief that
independent claims 1 and 20 should be considered separately.
Accordingly, the dependent claims on appeal stand or fall
together with the independent claim upon which they depend.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
Appellant does not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Yeakle discloses a lift table much like
appellant's with the exception that the sensor mechanism (42),
actuated by a guard (46), is mounted on the perimeter of the
table, not the base, as presently claimed. However, as
acknowledged by appellant, Kemmerer discloses a power-operated
lift recliner wherein the sensor mechanism for interrupting the
descent of the recliner may be situated on the bottom surfaces of
the wooden frame members or the top surfaces of the base frame
members (see column 3, lines 5-12). Accordingly, based on the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007