Appeal No. 2001-0401 Page 14
Application No. 09/019,451
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 2, and claim 3 dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.9
Claim 20
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
The appellant presents the same argument with respect to
claim 20 as was presented with respect to claim 2. However,
such argument is not persuasive with respect to claim 20 since
the claimed "first storage shelf" is not recited in the same
detail as in claim 1. In our view, the examiner is correct
that the claimed "first storage shelf" (recited in parent
claim 18) is readable on the cooler tray plate 35 of Gonzalez
and the claimed "second storage shelf" (recited in claim 20)
is readable on the work table 16 of Gonzalez. Thus, the
9We have also reviewed the reference to Wise additionally
applied in the rejection of claim 3 but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of Gonzalez and Bovenzi
discussed above with respect to claim 2. Moreover, it is our
opinion that the counterbalance limitation of claim 3 would
not have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of the
applied prior art.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007