Appeal No. 2000-0514
Application No. 09/063,446
In order to meet the terms of claim 3, this proposed
modification presumably would involve the reconfiguration of
Nicely's tapered flanges 32 into parallel, upwardly extending
hooks (along with a complementary reconfiguration of Nicely's
tapered corner piece slots 45) and the retention of Nicely's
split sleeve 18. The combined teachings of Nicely and
Champagne, however, would not have suggested this highly
selective change in Nicely's shelf retaining structure.
Although Champagne does indicate that the shelving system
disclosed therein "does not require wedge-shaped inserts"
(column 1, lines 32 and 33), thereby implying some
disadvantage to tapered or frusto-conical wedging surfaces of
the sort disclosed by Nicely, there is nothing in this
reference which would have motivated the artisan to eliminate
the wedging aspect of Nicely's flanges 32 by replacing them
with parallel, upwardly extending hooks, while at the same
time retaining the wedging aspects embodied by Nicely's split
sleeve 18. The only suggestion for picking and choosing from
between Nicely and Champagne as the examiner has stems from
impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's
disclosure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007