Appeal No. 2005-0096
Application No. 09/765,098
Attention is directed to the main and supplemental briefs
(filed February 24, 2003 and April 9, 2004) and to the answer
(mailed May 19, 2004) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner regarding the merits of this
rejection.
DISCUSSION
Geschwender, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
leisure chair 1 composed of a knock-down frame 3, a removable
cover 11 and a cushion 25. The knock-down frame comprises a pair
of U-shaped tubular frame portions 5 and 7 and a pair of L-shaped
rod connectors 9 adapted to be telescopically received in
respective opposing ends of the tubular frame portions to form a
rigid frame. In use, the chair may be disposed on a supporting
surface in either of two positions: a “sitting” position as shown
in Figure 1 and a “reclining” position as shown in Figure 2.
As conceded by the examiner (see page 3 in the answer), the
Geschwender chair does not respond to the limitations in claim 1
requiring the ends of the U-shaped frame portions to be
“chamfered” and the U-shaped frame portions and L-shaped
connectors to be “Zinc plated.” The underlying specification
indicates that these features facilitate installation of the
cover on the frame and prevent tearing of the cover during such
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007