Appeal No. 97-4080
Application 08/432,079
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner.
As a result of this review we have determined that the
applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the rejection of the claims on appeal is reversed. Our
reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner’s findings of fact
with respect to the Kopmar and Threlfall references.
However, with respect to the Carlson reference, the
examiner’s finding that Carlson has a table-top 20 with a
downwardly depending peripheral flange appears to be based on
assumption or conjecture. All figures of the table 20 in
Carlson are perspective drawings. None shows the cross
section of the
table 20. The specification of Carlson merely states that
the “table top member 20 may be of any desired thickness and
in the embodiment shown has been made thick enough to provide
space for a plurality of drawers 27 adapted to contain
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007