Appeal No. 2004-1089
Application No. 09/770,302
(final rejection, page 3). Bertram’s teaching of the superiority
of removable legs versus pivotal legs in terms of attaining a
smaller storage and transport size would have provided the
artisan with ample motivation or suggestion to so modify the
Hagelfeldt structure. Furthermore, Hagelfeldt’s use of holes in
the frame to attach elements 29 and 29' thereto would have
suggested the use of similar holes to removably connect the legs
to the frame. As so modified in view of Bertram, the Hagelfeldt
crib would respond to all of the limitations in claim 21. Thus,
the fair teachings of Hagelfeldt and Bertram (1) belie the
appellant’s arguments that the proposed combination thereof is
unsound and (2) offer no support for the related assertions that
“it would be a total contradiction to have removable legs on the
Hagelfeldt crib” (brief, page 6) and that “the Hagelfeldt
construction would not even function with removable legs” (brief,
page 6).
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 21 as being unpatentable over
Hagelfeldt in view of Bertram.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 22 through 28 as being unpatentable
over Hagelfeldt in view of Bertram since the appellant has
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007