Appeal No. 2004-1520 Page 9
Application No. 09/957,058
maneuverability desired is not only evident from the prior art as a whole, but evident
from the disclosure of Howard specifically (Howard, col. 7, ll. 26-46).
With regard to claim 6, Appellant argues that Howard does not disclose or teach
that the two front wheels project outside of the platform (Brief, p. 14). But Howard
indicates that the wheels are to be located at the most advantageous point beneath the
platform or plate 60 and mounted to support the frame A. The location of the wheels is
thus a matter of routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Moreover,
Berfield shows the front wheel as projecting to the outside of the outer edge as claimed.
Berfield, therefore, is evidence that such a projecting placement was known in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have placed the front wheels so they project to the
outside of the outer edge when that placement offered optimal support.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective
evidence of non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter of claims 1-6 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007