Appeal No. 1998-2421
Application 08/668,340
have a rack which was “free-standing,” as claimed. The examiner states on page 6 of the
answer that Samsing’s rack 29 has a base 30, 31 which is supported “prior of [sic: to]
being folded into the box (Figure 3).” However, Figure 3 of Samsing merely shows the
rack as it is prior to assembly into the stand, as shown in Figures 4 and 7. Thus, assuming
arguendo that it would have been obvious in view of Samsing to modify the system of
Christie so that Christie’s “rack” (clip) 28 would extend to the bottom of the box 24 and
include a support base, the thus-modified rack would not be “free-standing” because, in
accordance with Samsing’s teaching, one of ordinary skill would attach the base of the
rack to the floor of the box. We find no teaching in Samsing, or in either of Stollberg or
Fenton, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill that the rack could or should be free-
standing. The rejections of apparatus claims 1 to 10 will therefore not be sustained.
As for method claim 11, we agree with appellant (brief, pages 12 to 13) that even if
Christie were modified in view of Samsing and Stollberg, one of ordinary skill would not
have found it obvious to place the articles on the rack and then place the rack in the box, as
claimed, because, in accordance with Samsing’s disclosure, the rack must be secured to
the box before the articles are placed on it (col. 2, lines 50 to 55), and it is difficult to see
how these steps could be performed in reverse order, as claim 11 requires.
The rejection of claim 11 will not be sustained.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007