Appeal No. 1998-0357
Application 08/258,429
without Arnold, in light of the appellants’ statement that
these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (see page 18 in the
brief).
Claim 3 is similar to claim 1, the only substantial
difference being that claim 3 additionally requires the power
supply system which is common to both claims to include wall
structure defining first and second cable-receiving passages
wherein the wall structure functions to isolate the passages
from one another. The appellants’ argument that the applied
prior art would not have suggested a table assembly having
this feature is belied by Newhouse’s teaching of wire
organizer elements 106 and 160. These elements comprise
housing wall structures which define first and second cable-
receiving passages that are isolated from one another to
permit cable segregation where
desired. Thus, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over
Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or without Arnold.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007