Appeal No. 1998-0236
Application No. 08/472,536
extend outwardly of the end walls does not distinguish from
Novitski.
Furthermore, Novitski discloses all of the other elements
of claim 15 (namely the pair of supports in the form of posts
9 and the furniture component in the form of cabinet 3 having
end walls and a back wall). As such the subject matter does
not distinguish from Novitski. The rejection of this claim
under
§ 103 is nonetheless proper since anticipation is the epitome
of obviousness. See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ
601, 607 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 15. We will also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 14 and 16 since the patentability of these
claims has not been argued separately of claim 15. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 and In re Burckel,
592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70.
With regard to the two rejections of claim 17, neither
Hannum nor Tasaka teaches or suggests appellant’s claimed bed
construction in which a joint between adjacent bottom wall
panels is located over a cross member interconnecting the
bed’s side rails. Hannum even lacks a disclosure of a bed.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007