Appeal No. 1998-0357
Application 08/258,429
Claim 14 is similar to claim 9 in that it recites a table
assembly comprising an access cover interconnected between the
power and communication structure and the lower surface of the
table. Since there is nothing in the applied references which
would have suggested a table assembly having such a cover, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 14, or of claims 15 through 17 which depend therefrom,
as being unpatentable over Newhouse in view of Grund, taken
with or without Arnold.
Claim 18 recites a modular table system comprising table
support structure essentially similar to the table leg
assembly recited in claim 41. The examiner’s reliance on
Gutmann to overcome the implicitly acknowledged lack in
Newhouse, Grund and Arnold of any teaching or suggestion of
such support structure is not well founded for the reasons
explained above. Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18, or of claims 19
through 21 and 24 through 30 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Newhouse in view of Grund, taken with or
without Arnold, and further in view of Gutmann.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007