Appeal No. 97-3068 Page 9
Application No. 08/389,904
wire spools. Clearly, the space between Byfield's shelves 13
define but one compartment capable of isolating wire spools in
one compartment from the wire spools in the other compartment.
Second, the examiner's determination that it would have
been obvious to provide a "compartment" for each spool to
protect each spool from the environment (including from
adjacent spools) or for aesthetic purposes is unsupported by
any evidence. There is no objective teaching in the applied
prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary3
skill in the art that would have led that individual to modify
Byfield's rack to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, we
agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 9-10, 13-14,
and 16-18) that the applied prior art would not have been
suggestive of the claimed invention, absent impermissible
hindsight.
3We have also reviewed the references to Therrien and
Demmien applied by the examiner, but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of Byfield discussed
above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007