Appeal No. 2005-0096
Application No. 09/765,098
to facilitate their receipt within the L-shaped connectors is not
germane to the subject matter actually recited in the claim. In
short, Snyder’s disclosure of chamfered ends on male-type members
does not suggest any desirability or incentive to provide
chamfered ends on Geschwender’s female-type U-shaped frame
portions as required by claim 1.
Moreover, Spease’s disclosure of a motion transmitting
remote control assembly having an element which is zinc plated
contains no suggestion to furnish the U-shaped frame portions and
L-shaped connectors of Geschwender’s leisure chair with zinc
plating. The widely disparate natures of the two devices belies
the examiner’s functional durability under stress rationale.
Hence, the combined teachings of Geschwender, Snyder and
Spease do not justify a conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in claim 1 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Geschwender in view of Snyder and Spease.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007