Appeal No. 2001-1637
Application No. 08/800,052
front wall 58), such as the wall taught by Dahme, to provide
the table with extra storage space, i.e. the shelves located
on the rear wall would provide additional storage space”
(final rejection, pages 2-3 and 6), and “to add a studded play
surface onto the top of Myslinski, such as the studded play
surface of Boutin . . . to provide the table with a specific
’play’ building surface for a child” (final rejection, pages 6
and 9).
The examiner’s position here is faulty for a number of
reasons.
To begin with, the determination by the examiner that
Myslinski’s back panel 58 constitutes a “front wall” for
purposes of responding to the appealed claims runs counter to
the express teachings of the reference and to the manner in
which the artisan would have understood same. The nature of
the Myslinski structure as a stereo cabinet having a back
panel 58 and a front door 62 belies the examiner’s broadly
based notion that “[t]he use of ’front’ and ’rear’ to describe
a feature is relative; therefore, to use the nomenclature of
’front’ to describe the wall 58 of Myslinski is a reasonable
choice” (answer, page 5).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007