Ex parte COHEN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 15, 1997

08062274 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 1997)

Application for patent filed May 17, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JOAN COHEN
__________
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,2741
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to
16, all the claims pending in the application.
The three independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 8 and 13,
are illustrative of the subject matter in issue and are
reproduced in the appendix hereto.
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
2
The references applied by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Nanna 2,415,146 Feb. 4, 1947
Fiore 5,090,724 Feb. 25, 1992
Manuszak 5,125,674 Jun. 30, 1992
The claims stand finally rejected on the following grounds:
1. Claims 1, 2 and 5 to 15, anticipated by Nanna, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b);
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 11 to 15, anticipated by Fiore,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
3. Claims 1 to 5, 8 and 11 to 16, anticipated by Manuszak,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
presented by appellant in her brief and reply brief, and by the
examiner in his answer, we conclude that none of these rejections
can be sustained.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently.” In re Schreiber, --F.3d ---, ---, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, we find that each of
the independent claims recites a limitation which is not
disclosed in either of Nanna, Fiore or Manuszak, namely:
“wherein in said sitting condition said seat is disposed so as to
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
3
preclude a child from standing on said step” (claim 1); “moving
the seat from a position where it precludes a child from standing
on the step” (claim 8); and “the seat being moveable from a
position where it precludes a child from standing on the step”
(claim 13).
With regard to the Nanna patent, the examiner refers to
column 3, lines 39 to 51, wherein it is disclosed that the foot
board (step) 37 may be placed on the seat 33 to cover the leg
openings 34. However, such an arrangement would not meet the
above-quoted limitations, because once the step 37 is removed
from its location below the seat 33, the seat can no longer
preclude a child from standing on the step. In other words, the
step cannot be in a position to be stood upon by a child, while
at the same time precluding a child from standing on it.
The above-quoted limitations are also not met by either of
the Fiore or Manuszak patents, because in both of these
references, even when the seat is in the horizontal position,
there is still a space within which a child may stand on the
step. Thus, in Fiore there is a space between the front of seat
22 and front frame 12, which would allow a child to stand on step
16, and in Manuszak (Fig. 2) there is a space between the front
of seat 64 and wall 20 wherein a child could stand on step 12.
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
4
Accordingly, the seats in these references do not have a position
or location in which they preclude a child from standing on the
step. We find no basis in these references for the examiner's
argument that the height of the Fiore seat would preclude a child
from standing on the floor, or that the positioning of Manuszak's
seat “prevents the seated child of the correct size from standing
on the floor” (answer, page 4). Moreover, even assuming that a
child seated in the seat of either Fiore or Manuszak could not
get out of the seat to stand on the floor (step), the seats would
still not be disposed, located or positioned so as to preclude
(another) child from standing on the step, as called for by the
claims.
Accordingly, the claims are not anticipated by Nanna, Fiore
or Manuszak.
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
5
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 16 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
6
Steven R. Petersen
P.O. Box 1442
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
7
APPENDIX
1. A child stroller which is convertible between a sitting
condition, in which it is adapted to carry a child in a normal
sitting position, and a standing condition, in which it is
adapted to carry a child in a standing position, comprising:
a frame;
a plurality of wheels rotatably mounted to the frame,
the wheels supporting the frame above the ground when they are in
contact with the ground;
a seat which in the stroller's sitting condition is
secured to the frame generally horizontally at a height above the
ground sufficient to enable a child to sit upon the seat in a
normal sitting position; and
a step which in the stroller's standing condition is
secured to the frame generally horizontally at a height above the
ground which is lower than the height of the seat in the
stroller's sitting condition,
wherein in said sitting condition said seat is disposed so
as to preclude a child from standing on said step.
8. A method of converting a wheeled child stroller, which
is adapted to carry a child in a normal sitting position upon a
generally horizontal seat of the stroller, to a condition adapted
to carry a child in a standing position, comprising the steps of:
providing a generally horizontal step below the
location occupied by the seat; and
moving the seat from a location where it precludes a
child from standing on the step to a location where it does not
impede a child from standing upon the step.
Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
8
13. A child stroller having a seat and a step below the
seat, the seat being moveable from a position where it precludes
a child from standing on the step to a position in which a child
may stand upon the step without interference by the seat.