Appeal Number: 2006-1059
Application Number: 09/780,603
appellant’s brief (filed February 2, 2005) and reply brief
(filed June 10, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the obviousness rejections put forth by the examiner will not be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
Appellant’s principal argument is that the combination of
Miles, Bonzer and Block applied by the examiner against claims 1
through 3 does not teach or suggest a creeper including wheels
having a wheel body with a hemispherical or semi-elliptical
cross-section wherein the wheel body is formed of a material
having a hardness ranging from about 65 to 85 on the Shore D
durometer scale, thereby providing a hardness level such that,
when used on a work surface, the shape of said wheel body
remains substantially unchanged. We agree with appellant.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007