Appeal No. 2006-1085
Application No. 10/392,209
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary with
regard to the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by appellant and the examiner regarding the rejection, we make reference to
the answer (mailed May 17, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellant’s revised brief (filed February 23, 2005) and
reply brief (filed June 14, 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 examiner’s obviousness rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
In rejecting claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner
has determined that Karashima discloses a wheeled cart or scooter (1)
generally like that claimed by appellant, except that it does not disclose a
connection feature of the particular type set forth in the claims on appeal for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007