Appeal No. 1999-0632 Page 9
Application No. 08/744,692
surface and support structure is not a "desk system." Thus,
we conclude that it is a limitation which must be observed
when interpreting the scope of claim 1. One of ordinary skill
in the art would understand a desk to be a structure having a
horizontal work surface and support structure, such as legs,
defining an opening beneath the work surface to accommodate
the legs of a seated person and, thus, would not consider the
Friedman base storage cabinet (11), or any of the modular
units (10) stacked thereon, to be a "desk." It follows then
that we do not consider the Friedman structure to be a "desk
system" as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and 12
which depend therefrom.
We have reviewed the teachings of Simonton, but find
nothing therein which would overcome the deficiencies noted
above with regard to the combination of Friedman and Boundy.
Therefore, we shall also not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claim 11.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007