Appeal Number: 2006-1059
Application Number: 09/780,603
mobility due to a unique wheel design that decreases friction
between the wheels and the work surface on which the creeper
is used. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
that claim can be found in the Claims Appendix of appellant’s
brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Block 4,034,434 July 12, 1977
Bonzer et al. (Bonzer) 4,559,669 Dec. 24, 1985
Doyle et al. (Doyle) 4,707,880 Nov. 24, 1987
Miles et al. (Miles) 5,895,062 Apr. 20, 1999
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Bonzer and Block.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miles in view of Bonzer and Block, as
applied above, and further in view of Doyle.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we
make reference to the answer (mailed April 20, 2005) for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007