Appeal No. 1999-1042 Page 9
Application No. 08/781,220
only slightly wider than the width of the medical gas assembly
mounted therein.
For the reasons set forth above, it is our conclusion that
the neither the teachings of Russo and Kroon nor the teachings
of Schwartz and Kroon establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
independent claim 14. This being the case, we will not sustain
these rejections of claim 14 or of claims 15-18, which depend
therefrom.
Considering the references in inverse order does not lead
to a different conclusion. The content of each of these
references has been discussed above. We fail to perceive any
teaching, incentive, or suggestion in Russo or Schwartz which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to add medical
gas supply means to the office cubicle structure disclosed by
Kroon. The rejections of Kroon in view of Russo and Kroon in
view of Schwartz also fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 14, and
therefore we will not sustain these rejections of claims 14-18.
The Double Patenting Rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007