Appeal 2006-3342
Application 10/195,217
1 member. Appellants also contend that Mahone does not disclose a shelf
2 member that is slidably mounted on brackets.
3 Appellants contend that Di Girolamo does not disclose a shelf adapted
4 to be mounted within the refrigerator.
5 Appellants further contend that there is no motivation to provide Fish
6 with a pair of removable legs as disclosed in Mahone because one never
7 wants to remove the shelf in Fish. According to Appellants, Mahone is not
8 analogous art as Mahone does not relate to a refrigerator shelf.
9 Appellants also contend that it would not have been obvious to form
10 the rear wall member of the Fish/Mahone shelf by molding and so as to be
11 1½ inches tall.
12
13 ISSUES
14 The first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
15 erred in that finding that Mahone discloses a shelf that is capable of use in a
16 refrigerator.
17 The second issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
18 Examiner erred in finding that Mahone discloses a rear wall member that is
19 slidably mounted on brackets.
20 The third issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
21 erred in finding that Di Girolamo discloses a shelf adapted to be mounted
22 within the refrigerator.
23 The fourth issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
24 Examiner erred in holding that there would be a reason for providing the
25 Fish shelf with a pair of removable legs as disclosed in Mahone.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013