Appeal Number: 2006-1059
Application Number: 09/780,603
For the reasons set forth on pages 6-8 of the brief and in
the reply brief, we agree with appellant that the patents to
Miles, Bonzer and Block, whether considered individually or
collectively, do not teach or suggest a creeper assembly like
that defined in claim 1 on appeal. Miles makes no comment
concerning the construction of the caster wheels therein. Both
Bonzer and Block teach having wheels or rollers that have a
soft, resiliently deformable outer portion and a rigid inner
portion. Nothing in the applied prior art teaches a caster
wheel having a wheel body with a floor contacting portion having
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 scale, thereby providing a
hardness level such that, when used on a work surface, the shape
of said wheel body remains substantially unchanged, as required
in appellant’s claim 1.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, the
rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) will not
be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007