Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
ii. Appellants' position
Appellants argue that the prior art fails to address two limitations
asserted to be lacking in Slipp, i.e., that "said entire peg is positioned
adjacent to said upper portion for storage and packaging of said apparatus"
and "frictional means connected to said pegs for frictionally engaging said
upper portion of said tray when said pegs are moved between said first
storage position and said second operative position" as recited in claim 22
(Br., 46-50).
iii. analysis
We reiterate our analysis of Slipp and our finding that Slipp discloses
the two claim limitations of claim 22 that "said entire peg is positioned
adjacent to said upper portion for storage and packaging of said apparatus"
and "frictional means connected to said pegs for frictionally engaging said
upper portion of said tray when said pegs are moved between said first
storage position and said second operative position." Appellants do not
contest the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Slipp with Chang's disclosure
of "a stop member ring support mount for imparting lateral stability
including locking means with or without a cam stop member at column 3
line 66 through column 4 line 34. . .for the purpose of providing a supporting
an article" (Answer, 10).
Accordingly, on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 27 and 28 under § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp and
Chang.
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013