Appeal No. 96-1834
Application 08/046,945
use of said closet; and subsequently opening said front panel
zipper means and disassembling within said interior of said
fabric closet component said male and female interconnecting
means of said skeletal support, whereby said clothes storage
closet is place into a component storage condition to facilitate
storage and transport thereof.
The references relied on by the examiner are:2
Poirier 1,445,789 Jun. 06, 1966
(France)3
Despujols 1,467,955 Dec. 26, 1966
(France)4
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Despujols or Poirier. It is the examiner’s
position that:
The difference between the claimed device and the
references is the lack of structural support for the
door in the applicant’s device. It is well settled in
case law that the elimination of an element and its
function is an obvious matter of design choice for one
having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore to modify5
2In the answer the examiner also listed French Patent No.
1,381,948 to Plastra as being relied on; however, this reference
was not used in either the final rejection (see Paper No. 13) or
a new ground of rejection in the answer.
3Translation attached.
4Translation attached.
5We observe, however, that the question of whether the
elimination of an element and its function would have been
obvious is “is based upon a determination of obviousness under
section 103 and not upon a mechanical rule.” In re Wright, 343
F.2d 761, 769, 145 USPQ 182, 192 (CCPA 1965)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007