Appeal No. 1998-0357 Application 08/258,429 without Arnold, in light of the appellants’ statement that these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (see page 18 in the brief). Claim 3 is similar to claim 1, the only substantial difference being that claim 3 additionally requires the power supply system which is common to both claims to include wall structure defining first and second cable-receiving passages wherein the wall structure functions to isolate the passages from one another. The appellants’ argument that the applied prior art would not have suggested a table assembly having this feature is belied by Newhouse’s teaching of wire organizer elements 106 and 160. These elements comprise housing wall structures which define first and second cable- receiving passages that are isolated from one another to permit cable segregation where desired. Thus, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or without Arnold. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007