Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
tread base in said second position.” (FF11; final Office action
at 2.) Again, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s
determination in this regard. (FF12.)
Notwithstanding this difference, the examiner concluded
5 that the subject matter of appealed claim 1 would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Specifically, the examiner
relied on the teachings of Teague to account for the sole
difference between the invention recited in appealed claim 1 and
10 Damark.
Teague describes a recess or cabinet bed of the type in
which a bed is mounted at its head upon a counterbalancing
mechanism provided to support the bed as it swings between its
horizontal or “open position” in use and its vertical or “closed
15 position” in storage. (FF13; column 1, lines 5-11; Figures 1-
4.) Teague teaches that the bed includes an improved
counterbalancing mechanism facilitating movement between these
two stable positions. (FF14; column 1, lines 12-68.) As part
of the counterbalancing mechanism, Teague teaches (FF15; column
20 2, line 1 to column 3, line 68) the use of gas springs 56, which
“provide the lifting force or moment to move the bed up to the
position where its center of gravity passes over the pivot
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007