Appeal No. 1998-2421
Application 08/668,340
displaying small articles, and are reproduced in the appendix to appellant’s brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Samsing 3,265,216 Aug. 9, 1966
Stollberg et al. (Stollberg) 4,184,625 Jan. 22, 1980
Christie 4,363,405 Dec. 14, 1982
Fenton et al. (Fenton) 5,249,668 Oct. 5, 1993
The claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the following combinations of references:
(1) Claims 1 to 8 and 11, Christie in view of Samsing and Stollberg; and
(2) Claims 9 and 10, Christie in view of Samsing, Stollberg and Fenton.
The bases of these rejections are set forth on pages 4 to 6 of the examiner’s
answer.
2
After considering the record in light of the arguments presented in appellant’s brief
and reply brief, and in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the rejections will not be
sustained.
With regard to claim 1, our conclusion is based on the fact that, even if the
references were combined as proposed by the examiner, the resulting structure would not
2 On page 6, line 4 of the specification, we note that “box” should be --rack--.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007