Appeal No. 2001-1637
Application No. 08/800,052
Furthermore, there is nothing in Dahme’s disclosure of a
display counter 60 having a wall member 72 which would have
suggested adding such a wall member adjacent, and to the rear
of, Myslinski’s back panel 58. The examiner has not cogently
explained, nor is it apparent, why a person of ordinary skill
in the art seeking more storage shelf space would turn to such
a wall member instead of simply expanding the storage shelf
space afforded by Myslinski’s shelves 60. Moreover, disposing
a wall member adjacent, and to the rear of, Myslinski’s back
panel 58 would obstruct, and therefore render useless, the
access openings 78 in the back panel, and would not result in
the particular bin and access opening arrangement specified in
claims 1, 10 and 15.
Similarly, there is nothing in Boutin’s disclosure of a
play tray 16 having a play sheet 18 attached thereto which
would have suggested adding a like play surface to the top 52
of the Myslinski cabinet. The height of the cabinet and its
intended use for stereo equipment refute the examiner’s
conclusion that this modification would have been obvious to
provide a specific play surface for a child.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007