Appeal No. 98-1979
Application 08/505,465
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the2
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The respective rejections of the claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103 must be reversed since the evidence proffered
by the examiner fails to support a conclusion of obviousness.
Independent claim 17 is drawn to an adjustable shelving
system comprising, inter alia, first and second side brace
elements, a plurality of interchangeable shelves positioned
between the side brace elements, each of the side brace
elements comprising a side wall having formed therein a
plurality of spaced openings having a keyhole configuration,
retention means for the shelves comprising a knob, with the
2In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of the
disclosure of each document for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only the specific
teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007