Appeal No. 2001-1768 Page 4
Application No. 09/285,787
separating means. However, it is the examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LeSage cabinet by providing in each frame a
plurality of transverse members with supporting means for holding the stored items, in view
of the teachings of Ellingsworth, and to provide a flexible separation means in view of the
showing of Ball. The essence of the appellant’s arguments is that there would have been
no suggestion to combine the teachings of the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner and, even if such were proper, the result would not be the claimed structure.
Claim 1 requires that the separation means be “a flexible sheet for allowing the stored
items in one of the . . . frames to intrude into the other” (emphasis added). The common
1
definition of “flexible” is bendable, especially repeatedly. It is in this context in which the
appellant has disclosed the sheet in the specification and set it out in the claims and, in
fact, has amplified it by explaining that it must be capable of functioning in such a manner
as to allow the stored items in one frame to intrude into the space of the other.
Nevertheless, the examiner has taken the position that the PLEXIGLAS door panel
disclosed by Ball is flexible (Answer, page 5) because this material is used as walls in
hockey arenas and therefore “obviously must have some flexibility/give” (Answer, page 7).
The examiner also notes that “the limitation directed to the intrusion of items . . . appears in
an intended use statement” and therefore has been given no weight (Answer, page 5).
1See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 439.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007