Appeal No. 2003-0399
Application No. 08/774,150
109, 128) of Stanley's bed being supported on at least one of the
vertical and horizontal rail members of the side rail.
Having reviewed and evaluated the applied prior art
references, we share appellant's assessment of the rejection on
appeal and agree with appellant that neither Stanley nor Johnston
discloses, teaches or suggests a "control stick" like that
recited in claim 9 on appeal, wherein the control stick is
supported on at least one of said vertical and horizontal rail
members of the side rail and wherein "movement of said control
stick actuates said actuator" (emphasis added) for actuating the
support frame in articulated movement. Even if the control means
(109, 128) of Stanley were supported on a side frame (9) like
that seen on the bed of Johnston as the examiner has set forth in
the rejection, we do not see that appellant's claimed subject
matter would be the result.
More particularly, we note that the levers (109) of Stanley,
identified by the examiner as corresponding to the "control
stick" of appellant's claims, are described in that patent as
being "manually operable selector levers . . . for selective
operation to position the rod 97" (col. 7, lines 28-32).
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007