Appeal No. 2004-1847
Application No. 10/178,998
connection unit for the frame and the base. While appellants
maintain that springs 20 and 22 of Bottemiller "are not connected
to each other" (page 9 of principal brief, first paragraph),
claim 5 fails to recite any requirement that the pair of parallel
flexures which are part of the connection unit be connected to
each other.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 2-4 and 7-9 over
Cole in view of Wu, we find no error in the examiner's legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill
in the art "to enhance the chair of Cole with a sleeve and slot
horizontal adjusting device, as taught by Wu, for a more secure
adjusting means" (page 5 of Final rejection, first paragraph).
Although the arguments advanced by appellants are directed to the
physical incorporation of the features of Wu's chair into the
chair of Cole, such is not necessary for a finding of obviousness
under § 103. Rather, it is the collective teachings of Cole and
Wu that would have suggested the features of the presently
claimed chair. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ
871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
Likewise, with respect to the examiner's § 103 rejection of
claims 10 and 11 over Bottemiller in view of Liu with the
rationale that it would have been obvious "to modify the rocking
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007