Appeal No. 2001-0150
Application No. 09/250,617
Appellants argue that Bisk does not disclose or suggest
furnishing stabilization to a series of vertically spaced shoe
supports.
We do not agree. As Bisk discloses a grid which includes
stabilizing rods, we agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the Deaver structure so as to include stabilizing rods in view of
the Bisk reference for the self evident reason of increasing the
stability of the structure.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Deaver in view of
Bisk.
In regard to claim 5, the examiner states that:
. . . Bisk ‘495 teaches that it is old in the art to
have a rack that is capable of being nested together,
e.g., each vertically disposed planar member (22) can
be disassembled from connectors (24) and horizontally
disposed planar members, i.e., shoe supports [answer at
page 4].
We will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim
5. Claim 5 requires that the racks are capable of nesting
together. In our view, the capacity of nesting after disassembly
of the racks does not meet the requirements of this claim.
In summary:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007