Appeal No. 1998-0236
Application No. 08/472,536
recitation in claim 30 of “furniture components” is broad
enough to read on the components of Perkins’ lower bunk bed.
In addition, Perkins recognizes in column 1, lines 19-23, that
the modular design of separable furniture sections is
applicable to different types of furniture and that bunk beds
are but one type of such modular furniture systems.
Furthermore, Bianco’s teaches the concept of utilizing
components other than bed in the lower furniture section. In
this regard, Bianco’s teachings cannot be ignored, for the
test for obviousness is not what the references exclusively or
individually teach. Instead, the test is what the references
would have collectively suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
Furthermore, claim 30 is broad enough to read on Perkins
alone because the recitation of the furniture components is
broad enough to read on Perkins’ lower plural component bunk
assembly.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection
of claim 30. We will also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 31 through 34 since the patentability of these claims
has not been argued separately of claim 30. See In re
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007