Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
position (column 2, lines 3-8), they are provided for the same
or similar purpose as that recited in appealed claim 1 (i.e.,
“to assist in stably retaining said tread base in said second
position relative to said upright structure with said tread base
5 in said second position”). Moreover, Teague teaches that the
gas springs, like the gas spring described in the ‘624 patent,
provide a lifting force. (FF20; column 2, lines 3-8.) Thus,
Teague’s gas spring functions in the same or similar manner as
the appellant’s gas spring. It follows then that Teague’s
10 teachings with respect to the lift assembly including gas
springs are “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
[providing an element that assists in stable retention of a
rotatable body at a storage position and assisting in the lift
of the rotating body to its storage position] with which the
15 inventor is involved.” Under these circumstances, we reject the
appellant’s contention (substitute appeal brief at 10; reply
brief filed on July 22, 2005 at 3-4) that Teague is nonanalogous
art.
The appellant also urges that because Teague teaches that
20 the gas spring exerts a force resisting the force of gravity
(which, according to Teague, retains the bed in the storage
position), its teachings are diametrically opposed to the
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007