Appeal No. 96-1834
Application 08/046,945
Here, the examiner has not discharged that initial burden.
That is, the examiner has merely made the bald assertion that the
method steps set forth in claim 1 are “inherent” without
providing any basis in fact and/or technical reasoning whatsoever
to support such an assertion. Neither Despujols nor Poirier make
any mention of the specifically recited steps of (1) opening the
front panel zipper means, (2) erecting a skeletal support of
interconnected structural members within the interior of the
fabric closet component, (3) closing the front panel zipper means
and (4) subsequently opening the front panel zipper means and
disassembling the skeletal support within the interior of the
fabric closet component so that the entire device may be stored
in a compact condition for storage. Insofar as the disclosure of
these two references is concerned the skeletal support might be
first assembled and the fabric closet component thereafter formed
around the skeletal support, with no disassembly whatsoever being
contemplated. Indeed, it does not even appear that Poirier even
has the capability of being assembled and disassembled in the
claimed manner without destroying the entire device since the
frame 9 is attached by soldering (see translation, page 3).
Viewing Fig. 2 of Poirier it also appears that the connectors 6,
7 and 8 are similarly attached.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007