Appeal No. 2003-0399
Application No. 08/774,150
What the examiner finds lacking in Stanley is that the bed
therein has no "side rail" like that defined in appellant's claim
9. To account for this difference the examiner turns to
Johnston, urging that this patent discloses a side rail (9)
constructed in the manner required in claim 9 on appeal and
including a control means comprising "a control stick supported
on at least one of said vertical and horizontal rail members
within the side rail plane wherein movement of said control stick
controls operation of said actuator [sic]" (final rejection, page
5).
From the combined teachings of Stanley and Johnston, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious, presumably to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant's
invention, "to connect the side rail taught [sic] as taught by
Johnston with the actuator and control means of Stanley in order
to prevent the patient from falling out of the bed while the bed
is articulated" (final rejection, page 5).
We understand the examiner's rejection to result in the bed
of Stanley (e.g., Fig. 1) being provided with a side rail like
that seen at (9) in Johnston and with the control means (e.g.,
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007