Appeal No. 1997-2273
Application No. 08/320,585
Claims 31 through 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Colson (which incorporates
McLaughlin by reference) in view of Kimbrow.2
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 31 through 53 is
reversed.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4), Colson
was cited to show vertically spaced-apart shelves in a cabinet
(Figure 1), and removable storage locations on some of the
shelves (Figure 8). The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page
4) that “Colson does not disclose the appellant’s limitation
of a plurality of item switches horizontally spaced apart on
some of the shelves.”
Kimbrow discloses that it is known to mount a
mechanically switch activated apparatus that keeps an
inventory of items in stock “proximate to a shelf containing a
2Although McLaughlin is mentioned in the grounds of the
rejection, the examiner never addresses this reference in the
statement of the rejection. As a result thereof, we will not
address this reference in our opinion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007