Appeal No. 96-1883
Application 08/078,380
“slanted.” Moreover, it is clear from the explanation of the
Whelan invention that the holes must be inwardly or outwardly
slanted, so as to be able to move the articles inwardly and
outwardly on the work surfaces (column 5, line 17 et seq.). This
being the case, the appellants’ conclusion that an angular,
nonlinear, stepped path cannot be created is not persuasive. To
the same extent as this is present in the appellants’ invention,
so too, in our view is it present in Whelan. The appellants’
argument that the Whelan holes do not impart direction to the
articles also fails, for it is clear that such is not the case.
The rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Whelan is
sustained. Since the appellants have chosen to group claims 2,
8, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25 and 34 with claim 1 (Replacement Brief,
page 6), the rejection is also sustained as to these claims. We
note that the appellants have not mentioned claim 35 in the
required grouping of claims. This claim depends from claim 34,
which has been included in the grouping, and we thus shall assume
this was an inadvertent omission, and will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 35 along with the group.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the
references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007