Appeal No. 1998-0357
Application 08/258,429
(plug-in beam 12). Given these deficiencies, Gutmann does not
provide the factual basis necessary to justify the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we shall not sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 41, or
claims 42 through 46 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Gutmann.
As for the other two rejections on appeal, the Newhouse,
Grund and Arnold references all pertain to table/desk
assemblies having various cable management characteristics.
At the oral hearing held October 6, 1999, the appellants’
counsel, Andrew S. McConnell, conceded that the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of the
applied references. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 13 as being
unpatentable over Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or
without Arnold.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 8, 12, and 47 through 52 as being
unpatentable over Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007