Appeal No. 2003-0399
Application No. 08/774,150
rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed
September 18, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination which follows.
In rejecting claims 9 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on
the basis of the collective teachings of Stanley and Johnston, it
is the examiner's position (final rejection, pages 4-5) that
Stanley discloses an articulated medical bed like that defined in
the claims on appeal, including
a control means (109, 128, 129) for operation by a
person supported on said support frame, said control
means comprising a control sick 109 comprising an
elongated rod which is movable in a first direction to
actuate said actuator for moving said upper body
section upwardly and said control stick is movable in a
second direction to actuate said actuator for moving
said upper body section downwardly.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007