Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
iii. analysis
We reiterate our analysis of Slipp given above and our finding that
Slipp, in fact, discloses the claim limitation that "said entire peg is
positioned adjacent to said upper face for storage and packaging of said
apparatus." Appellants do not contest the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Slipp with the cutout
of Fox "for the purpose of providing a lifting an article" (Answer, 11).
Furthermore, Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of
claim 21.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 18 and 21 under § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp and Fox.
b. claims 30 and 31
Claim 30 further limits the apparatus of claim 22 by adding "a cutout
area on a side of said apparatus for facilitating lifting of said apparatus by a
user," while claim 31 requires the "cutout area to be positioned beneath said
one end of said upper portion."
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to combine the teachings of Slipp with the cutout of Fox "for the
purpose of providing a lifting an article" (Answer, 11).
i. Appellants' position
Appellants reiterates its argument applied to claim 22 that Slipp fails
to disclose "said entire peg is positioned adjacent to said upper face 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
33
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013