Appeal No. 2001-0150
Application No. 09/250,617
Appellants also argue that Deaver does not show any means
towards the upper part of the structure for engaging a pre-
existing horizontally disposed support. We do not agree. In our
view, the Deaver rack is disclosed as suspended from the ceiling
(page 1, lines 86-87), which is a pre-existing horizontally
disposed support. Thus, the Deaver rack clearly has a means
toward the upper part of the side supporting rods for engaging a
pre-existing horizontally disposed support. In addition, a rod,
which is a horizontal support, may be placed beneath the meeting
points through the openings at the top of the rack.
Appellants also argue that Deaver does not show any type of
shoe supports and in fact would tend to define away from a
storage type of shoe rack since Deaver discloses that the rack
may be raised or lowered to different elevations. In our view,
the shelves C of Deaver are capable of supporting shoes. We are
at a loss to understand the relevance of the fact that the shelf
of Deaver can be raised and lowered.
Appellants argue that the claims define an invention in
which its shoe rack supports are disposed approximately
horizontally but not fixed at a horizontal position. This
argument is not persuasive because the requirement of claim 4
that the shoe supports are “disposed approximately horizontally”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007