Appeal No. 2001-1636 Page 6
Application No. 09/226,890
the extended furniture system [of Roche] would span from partition to partition" (emphasis
ours). While the examiner is correct that the partitions of Hobgood could be spaced so
that the extended furniture system of Roche would span from partition to partition, we note
that there is no teaching in the applied prior art to do so. As to the examiner's assertion
(answer, p. 10) that such an arrangement of furniture would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art since it is "well within the level of one with ordinary skill in the art" we
note that the examiner has not provided any evidence to support that assertion. When an
examiner relies on general knowledge to negate patentability, that knowledge must be
articulated and placed on the record. See In re Lee, F.3d , , 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1433-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
From the above, it follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of claims
1 to 12 and 21 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 14 to 16 and 20
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants' position set forth in the briefs
that the subject matter of claims 14 to 16 and 20 is not suggested by the applied prior art.
Specifically, while the applied prior art may have suggested the use of a pad (see answer,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007