Appeal No. 2006-1085
Application No. 10/392,209
ring (46) placed over a central conical structure (44) defined by quarter-
section central corner portions of each of the modular sections. Note
particularly, Figures 2, 3, 7 and 8 of John. In the final analysis, we agree
with appellant that there is simply no reason to use the more complex, semi-
permanent connection arrangement of the sectional pallet in John in place of
the relatively simple connection arrangement present on the supermarket
goods carts of Karashima.
As an additional point, we note that independent claim 3 defines a
connection arrangement wherein the vertical side surface of the scooter
platform itself has a notch (e.g., 38) that is adapted to receive a mating
tongue on a second scooter for joining the scooters together in a close
mating relationship with abutting vertical side surfaces. We find nothing in
either Karashima or John that teaches or suggests such an arrangement. The
examiner’s position (answer, page 5) that the notch of appellant’s claim 3 is
readable on the space between the flanges (52’) of John, is not well founded,
since such space is not a notch in and defined by the vertical side surface of
a scooter platform as required by the claim.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007