Appeal No. 2004-1847
Application No. 10/178,998
admittedly allows for spring downward movement, also allows for
the reciprocal upward movement. Also, appellants' argument that
their "chair can be rocked rearwardly and forwardly, i.e.,
clockwise and counterclockwise from a rest position" (paragraph
bridging pages 6 and 7 of principal brief) is not germane to the
claimed subject matter. The appealed claims do not require any
clockwise and counterclockwise rocking from a rest position.
The breadth of the appealed claims is not limited by the
specification drawings.
Regarding separately argued claim 5, we agree with the
examiner that legs 7 and supports 8 of Cole meet the requirements
of the recited connection unit which mounts the chair frame on
the base. Again, claim 5 does not require that the base and
connection unit not be an integral structure.
Turning to the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 over
Bottemiller, we totally reject appellants' argument that coil
springs 20 and 22 of Bottemiller do not qualify as flexures. We
do not see how the dictionary definition supplied by appellants,
which includes the meanings "turn" and "bend," distinguishes over
the springs of Bottemiller which, clearly, are able to turn and
bend. As for separately argued claim 5, we agree with the
examiner that coil springs 20/22 and 58 qualify as the claimed
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007