Appeal No. 2001-0150
Application No. 09/250,617
Further, we note that although the appellants argue that the
shoe supports are not fixed at a horizontal position, appellants’
specification (page 7) discloses that the shoe supports may be
arranged level rather than on an incline to provide better
balance during usage and that the appellants’ original claim 2
recited that the shoe supports are disposed horizontally.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Deaver.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deaver in view of
Bisk. The examiner recognizes that Deaver does not disclose (1)
stabilizing rods to be attached to each side rail and positioned
between the front and rear rails of the supports and (2) a
plurality of racks capable of being nested together. Bisk is
relied on for disclosing a suspended rack comprising rods (see
figure 2, element 40) and the stabilizing rods being positioned
between the front and rear rails of the rack. The examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have
provided the rack of Deaver ‘274 with the vertical
stabilizing rods, as taught by Bisk ‘495, for increased
structural support and stability of the rack when items
are placed therein [answer at page 4].
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007