Appeal No. 2000-1833
Application 09/002,650
Whitehead discloses “a multi-purpose storage apparatus
capable of holding a variety of sports paraphernalia in an
orderly manner” (column 1, lines 53 through 55). The Figure 5
embodiment focused on by the examiner
employs plastic side wall support members having
attachment areas allowing for the support of rod
members . . . therebetween. The rod members are
constructed of a steel tube having a polyethylene
sleeve bound to the tubing during a unique
manufacturing process. The side wall members can
accommodate up to six adjoining rod members or any
variation therebetween allowing a consumer to choose
the amount of supporting shelf a particular sporting
item warrants. A tray is also provided for support of
miscellaneous items [column 1, lines 55 through 65].
In proposing to combine Adams and Whitehead to reject the
appealed claims, the examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide Adams’ rack with a shelf that is
made up of two brackets holding top and bottom rods
horizontally between the brackets as taught by
Whitehead in order [that] more towels can be hung on
the rack [answer, page 4].
Even if Whitehead is analogous art (the appellant seemingly
urges that it is not), there is nothing in the combined teachings
of the references which would have suggested the extensive
reconstruction of Adams in view of Whitehead proposed by the
examiner. Indeed, Adams’ stated desire for a simple, inexpensive
and easy to use auxiliary towel rack clearly teaches away from
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007