Appeal No. 96-2100
Application 08/149,844
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Silver (U.S. Pat. 3,872,975, granted Mar. 25,
1975) in view of Hill (U.S. Pat. 2,132,785, granted Oct. 11,
1938) “taken with or without” Weldon-Ming (U.S. Pat. 4,519,318,
granted May 28, 1985). Claim 6 stands similarly rejected, the
examiner additionally relying upon Sheffer (U.S. Pat. 4,651,651,
granted Mar. 24, 1987). So far as claims 1, 3 and 4 are
concerned, the examiner is of the view that Silver’s disclosed
structure differs from that claimed by the appellant only in that
Silver lacks a brace member and a specific teaching of being
placed in a compartment, assuming that such placement is a
requirement of these claims. Finding in Hill a teaching of such
a brace member and in Weldon-Ming a suggestion to place shelving
within a compartment, the examiner concludes that the appellant’s
claimed subject matter recited in claims 1, 3 and 4 would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding
claim 6, the examiner finds in Sheffer a teaching that connective
structures using tongue and groove structures are “old and well
known” making the modification of Silver’s structure to produce
the claimed invention obvious to the worker having ordinary skill
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007