Appeal No. 2004-1847
Application No. 10/178,998
unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
Concerning the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 over
Cole, the principal argument advanced by appellants is that Cole
does not describe the claimed base but, instead, describes the
spring base being directly on the ground. However, we agree with
the examiner that floor bar 6 of Cole meets the claimed
requirement for a base, whereas legs 7 and seat supports 8, in
addition to floor bar 6, correspond to the claimed pair of
parallel flexures for supporting the chair frame. We note that
the appealed claims do not require that the base and pair of
parallel flexures not form an integral structure.
Appellants also contend that Cole does not describe "the
claimed flexures to support the chair frame 'for rocking in a
vertical plane'" (page 6 of principal brief, penultimate
paragraph). However, appellants concede that Figure 1 of Cole
illustrates that the spring base 6-8 permits the seat frame to
move downwardly which, as explained by the examiner, qualifies as
movement in the claimed vertical plane (see page 6 of principal
brief, last paragraph). Manifestly, the chair of Cole, which
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007