Appeal No. 98-1459 Page 5
Application No. 08/309,756
modification. See In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ
560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be
supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references
to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-10) that the applied
prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject
matter, e.g., the use of a pair of upwardly opening channels
on the front rail, cooperating with a downwardly facing snap
clip and finger on the divider arm so that a downward movement
of the divider arm locks the divider arm to the rail. We
agree.
All the claims under appeal require a shelf divider
comprising, inter alia, an elongated rail having a pair of
upwardly opening channels or clips and an elongated divider
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007