Appeal No. 99-0618 Page 8
Application No. 08/797,496
The examiner has not supplied the factual basis for the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide a slot
in the top surface of the shelf protector of Celeste for
receiving a fastener passing through the slot and a hole in
the shelf. Accordingly, while we fully appreciate the
examiner's reasoning and the manner in which the teachings of
Celeste and Gebka have been combined in rejecting the claims,
we are constrained to reverse the examiner's decision
rejecting independent claim 15, and claims 2, 5 and 6 which
depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Celeste in view
of Gebka.
Further, with regard to claim 3, we have reviewed the
teachings of Garfinkle, but find nothing therein which alters
our view with regard to the basic combination of Celeste and
Gebka. In other words, Garfinkle does not overcome the
deficiencies of the combination of Celeste and Gebka noted
above.
Accordingly, we must likewise reverse the examiner's
decision rejecting claim 3 as being unpatentable in view of
Celeste in view of Gebka and Garfinkle.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007