Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
position" as recited in claim 22 (Br., 53-56). Appellants contend that Fox
fails to remedy this alleged deficiency in Slipp (Br., 54-56).
ii. 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" 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. 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 31.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 30 and 31 under § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp and Fox.
c. claims 32-34
Independent claim 32 has been reproduced above. Claim 33 further
limits the apparatus of claim 32 by adding "a cutout area on a side of said
apparatus for facilitating lifting of said apparatus by a user," while claim 34
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).
34
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013