Appeal No. 2001-0150
Application No. 09/250,617
location of the shoe supports 6 so that a plurality of shoe racks
can be packed and shipped together (see specification at pages 5
and 6).
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. 102(b). We initially note that to support a rejection of
a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each
element of the claim is found, either expressly described or
under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.
See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In support of this rejection, the examiner states:
Deaver ‘274 discloses a suspended rack comprising
vertical side supporting rods (A) that are parallel to
one another and having an upper part and a lower part;
means (D), i.e., a rope (E) and pulley system, on the
upper part of the side supporting rods engage a pre-
existing horizontally disposed support member (F’),
i.e., a ceiling; and a plurality of horizontally
disposed and spaced apart supports (C) are spaced from
the upper part of the vertical rods (A) and are
integrally formed and each support is comprised of a
rail, a back rail and two side rails and the side rails
are affixed (C’) generally perpendicularly to the
vertical side supporting rods (A) [answer at pages 3
and 4].
We agree with the analysis of the examiner and we therefore,
sustain this rejection.
The appellants argue that Deaver is a display rack and not a
storage rack for suspending pairs of shoes in a closet. However,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007