Appeal No. 96-1441
Application 08/096,458
space is speculative and has no basis in the references. Nor
is there any basis in the references for the examiner’s
conclusion that the proposed modification of Jenkins’ liner
would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Indeed,
the proposed modification would appear to run counter to
Jenkins’ objective of providing shelf supports capable of
accommodating different types of shelves.
In this light, it is apparent that the examiner has
resorted to speculation, unfounded assumptions and/or
hindsight reconstruction to supply the above noted
deficiencies in the reference evidence of obviousness.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 16, or of claims 2, 3, 7 and 18
which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Trevitt.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007