Appeal 2006-3342
Application 10/195,217
1 establish the anticipation of the claims. All that is required is that the
2 Mahone shelf system is capable of being placed in a refrigerator. We have
3 found that the Mahone shelf system is capable of being placed in a
4 refrigerator and therefore is a shelf “for use” in a refrigerator. In addition,
5 we have found that the Mahone shelf system can be placed in a refrigerator
6 in an orientation such that the wall 95 is in the rear of the refrigerator. In
7 regard to claim 8, we have found that during assembly the shelf 90 is slid
8 into place on the bracket 70 and therefore is slidably mounted on the
9 brackets.
10 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-17, 22 and
11 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Di Girolamo does not disclose a shelf
12 member adapted to be mounted within a refrigerator.
13 We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
14 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mahone. Firstly, we hold that
15 Mahone is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of
16 the Appellants of keeping items on a shelf from falling off. Further, even
17 though not in the field of refrigerator shelves per se, the teachings of
18 Mahone would have commanded the attention of an artisan when addressing
19 the problem of maintaining items on a shelf such as a refrigerator shelf.
20 In addition, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
21 in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rear wall of Fish so as
22 to comprise a pair of legs as taught by Mahone and so as to provide a
23 molded wall. Mahone teaches that a pair of legs is an alternative way of
24 mounting a wall. In addition, the modification of a pair of legs and a molded
25 wall would have been no more than the combination of familiar elements
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013