Appeal No. 2001-1636 Page 7
Application No. 09/226,890
pp. 11-12) on the underside of Roche's tabletop 37 to facilitate movement of the part 26
with respect to the stationary part 30 and to protect the top surface 35 of the stationary part
30 during such movement, it is our view that this does not arrive at the subject matter of
claims 14 to 16 and 20. In that regard, these claims recite that the worksurface of the
second furniture unit has a second end with a support rested on the flat top surface of the
top of the first furniture unit, the support being configured to support front and rear corners
of the second end, the support including a pad of mar resistant material contacting the flat
top surface of the top of the first furniture unit with the pad fixed to the support in a
substantially non-movable manner. Thus, the claims require the worksurface of the second
furniture unit to have a second end with both a support and a pad. The applied prior art at
best suggests only a pad, not a pad fixed to a support configured to support front and rear
corners of the second end of the worksurface of the second furniture unit. Consequently,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 to 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007