Appeal No. 2003-0109 Page 7
Application No. 09/576,649
In the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Murrell, the examiner ascertained2 (answer, p. 4) that Murrell disclosed all the
claimed subject matter except for the second seating member being smaller than the
first seating member (i.e., Murrell's auxiliary seat 8 being smaller than primary seat 7).
The examiner then determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to design the second seating member (i.e.,
Murrell's auxiliary seat 8) smaller than the first seating member (i.e., Murrell's primary
seat 7).
In the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Robbin, the examiner ascertained (answer, pp. 4-5) that Robbin
disclosed all the claimed subject matter except for the second seating member being
smaller than the first seating member (i.e., Robbin's auxiliary seat 56 being smaller than
primary seat 11). The examiner then determined that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the second
seating member (i.e.,Robbin's auxiliary seat 56) smaller than the first seating member
(i.e., Robbin's primary seat 11).
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007