Appeal No. 97-2722 Page 9
Application No. 08/329,840
combined rack and storage device of each primary reference to
be cantilevered since such is well known as shown by Edmonds
and Laiti.
We agree with the appellant's argument that there is
nothing in the applied prior art which would have suggested4
modifying the rack and storage device of either primary
reference to be cantilevered. While the references to Edmonds
and Laiti each disclose a cantilevered rack and storage
device, we see no motivation, absent impermissible hindsight,
for one skilled in the art to have modified the rack and
storage device of either primary reference to arrive at the
claimed invention. Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the
examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
New grounds of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.
4The applied prior art is Shockley, Edmonds, Laiti, the
French reference 112,504, Zopfi, Dworman, Silverman, and Bass.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007