Appeal No. 2003-0601 Page 3
Application No. 09/470,748
Specifically, claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gray in view of Kenworthy, Holbert, and Official Notice. According to the Answer, the
reasoning is set forth in a prior Office Action, Paper No. 12 (Answer, p. 3). We reverse for the
reasons that follow.
OPINION
The Examiner’s first error is one of reading the claims too broadly. The claims are
directed to a bar rail mat. While this language occurs in the preambles of the claims, it implies
structure: The mat must be of a structure which will fit on a bar rail, it must be capable of
supporting bar glasses and, importantly, it must be a mat. A mat is different than a dish drainer,
it is of lower profile and structured to support something while protecting an underlying surface.
For instance, a floor mat protects a floor from soiled shoes. The prior art references are directed
to dish and tumbler drainers, not mats.
The Examiner’s second error is one of using improper hindsight in making the
combination. Neither Kenworthy nor Holbert supports the Examiner’s proposition that it would
have been obvious, in view of the teachings in those references, to modify the spacing of
partitions 3 of Gray for the purpose of supporting a differently-sized object away from drained
liquids (Paper no. 12, p. 2). Gray does not suggest the support of dishes and glasses on top of the
partitions, Gray describes a wide spacing so that the dishes and glasses can be placed between
partitions (Fig. 4). Teeth 5 of Holbert prevent sliding on the sloping surface of a conical rack.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007