Appeal No. 2003-1327
Application 09/375,713
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and
6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Donovan in view of Amstutz, we note that on pages 3-4 of the
answer the examiner has urged that Donovan shows a stand for
supporting an object in an elevated position above a floor,
wherein the stand includes a rigid frame comprising a base and
mast arrangement like that generally set forth in claim 1 on
appeal (e.g., base members 11-14 and mast members 16, 17, 22),
but lacking a plurality of floor-engaging stabilizer feet
arranged in the manner required in appellants’ claims on appeal
and a pair of laterally spaced wheels of the type required in
claim 1 arranged in relation to the stabilizer feet so that the
wheels do not contact the floor when all of the feet are engaging
the floor and wherein a pair of said feet are disposed forwardly
of the wheels to serve as a fulcrum about which the frame may be
selectively tilted back to bring the wheels down into contact
with the floor so that the frame is supported by the wheels and
the stand can be easily moved between work locations.
To account for the above-noted differences, the examiner has
looked to the Amstutz patent, urging that this patent teaches use
of a mobile stand having a plurality of floor-engaging stabilizer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007