Appeal No. 2004-1089
Application No. 09/770,302
transporting (see Hagelfeldt at column 3, line 73, through column
4, line 7).
To overcome the admitted failure of Hagelfeldt to meet the
removable leg limitations in claim 21, the examiner cites
Bertram.
Bertram acknowledges the existence in the collapsible cot
art of two general configurations: one wherein the legs of the
cot are hingedly or pivotally attached to side rails for folding
between operative and storage/transport positions and the other
wherein the legs are releasably attached to the side rails for
removal during storage and transport (see column 1, line 18,
through column 2, line 19). Recognizing the latter configuration
to be superior to the former in terms of permitting a cot to be
broken down to a smaller size more suitable for transport by back
packers, mountain climbers, hikers and the like, Bertram
discloses a removable leg design which is described as enhancing
this capability.
In applying Hagelfeldt and Bertram against claim 21, the
examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to combine
Hagelfeldt’s cot invention with the removable leg teachings of
Bertram because removable legs allow the cot to be collapsed and
broken down into convenient parts for storage and transportation”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007